Compassionate Conservatism?: Olasky’s Snake Oil Doesn’t Have Much Appeal
While Olasky may call himself a compassionate conservative, I found his views to be the same old line the Religious Right has been peddling for years. His views on the family are out of touch with modern life, and he has a regressive outlook on social programs.
On Tuesday I had the opportunity to take my cousin Sam, visiting from London, to a luncheon at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. A political studies student at Leeds University, he was interested to learn about the impact of religion on our national politics.
When we arrived at AEI, we were greeted warmly, but the many kind smiles quickly turned to grimaces as we began to discuss the constitutionality of religiously motivated programs such as “faith-based” initiatives and tuition tax credits for religious schools. A tablemate of ours even refused to shake my hand at the end of the luncheon, obviously too upset over what I thought was merely a polite, political disagreement.
While I was certainly put off by his snub, it was by far the least offensive moment of the afternoon. The speakers, Marvin Olasky of World Magazine and provost of King’s College, and Jim Skillen, president of the Center for Public Justice spoke on the idea of Christian salvation and the maintenance of the traditional family. (You know the Religious Right’s definition: one man, one woman and as many well-behaved, socially conservative children as possible.)
Olasky drew some very strange connections. It seemed to me as if the gist of his speech was this: The government is not equipped to pursue social justice. Social justice is anchored in the Religious Right vision of a 1950s family. Furthermore, the Religious Right gets to define what a family is — no gay families or single parents need apply.
Marvin Olasky
While the event was billed as a reflection on “Social Justice, Free Markets and Evangelicals,” very little of it was of actual consequence to those of us engaged in the church-state arena. The speakers merely harped on the importance of maintaining traditional family values and disregarded any questions asked about faith-based initiatives or the wall of separation between religion and government.
While the conference held few attractions for me, a recent piece published in Olasky’s World Magazine does have some legitimate church-state implications.
In the article “Ready to Compete,” Olansky interviewed John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, who recently co-authored the book God is Back. Micklethwait and Wooldridge, both writers for The Economist, explored the thesis of their argument: Religion is strengthened by the separation of church and state. The marketplace of ideas — and the competition between faiths in a society wherein the government does not dictate conscience — leads to a stronger connection between the individual and his or her religious community.
“A lot of religious people thought [separation] would undermine religion,” explained Wooldridge. “That didn’t happen, because as soon as you separate them you get competition and you get religion even stronger.”
During the conference, I had the opportunity to ask Olasky whether the authors’ argument had given him any pause or caused him to reconsider his staunch support for “faith-based” initiatives. (Olasky was an occasional advisor to George W. Bush and the intellectual force behind Bush’s faith-based frenzy).
He dodged my question, answering instead that his is a “strong supporter of the separation of church and state.”
I’ve never met a staunch separationist who believes that government should subsidize sectarian causes rather than secular endeavors. As a matter of fact, when Olasky asked the crowd if anyone would chose to pay taxes if he or she had the opportunity to donate that money to religious organizations instead, I raised my hand (proud to pay taxes that support public education and public health initiatives). He joined the rest of the audience in looking at me as if I were some sort of social pariah.
While Olasky may call himself a “compassionate conservative,” I found his views to be the same old line the Religious Right has been peddling for years. His views on the family are out of touch with modern life, and he has a regressive outlook on social programs. Olasky seems to believe the government should play a very limited role in helping the poor and those in need.
In his opinion, a cot or warm bowl of soup provided by the government would be “socially unjust” unless it also included the fostering of interpersonal relationships between the individual in need, the righteous benefactor and perhaps even the Lord himself. It reminds me of a Dickens novel!
Olasky needs to realize that Dickens lived long ago, and people in England have long since rejected the idea of leaving the poor to the mercies of the church – as have people here.
As we left the event, I asked Sam what he thought about religion and politics in America as compared to Britain.
“Religion is a non-issue there — abortion, gay rights, all non issues,” Sam explained. “There is no Religious Right.
“While there is technically an established church,” he continued, “I think people are freer where I live. Everyone has the same rights. Your country’s denial of people’s basic rights and liberties due to their religion or sexual orientation is just mental.”
If Olasky’s view ever becomes dominant in this country, things will only get worse. In that case, Sam might want to prepare to have me come over for a permanent vacation.