Customer Reviews

Compassionate Conservatism: Library Edition

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

The Sixties gave us many things. One thing it took away was the willingness and ability of Americans as individuals to take responsibility for themselves and to be accountabe for their actions. Compassionate conservatism is a way to return responsibility and accountability to individuals and, in so doing, freeing them from poverty, addictions, and other negative behaviors. Many people attack compassionate conservatism as some religious trend but if all religious elements are stripped from it, what remains is the same idea of taking responsibility for one's own actions that mental health professionals try to get their clients to develop. If you have never worked with any of the populations Olasky describes, then you are not qualified to judge what he has written about them and whether compassionate conservatism offers a way out of their depressing lifestyles. I have been a member of some of those populations and I have worked with them since "recovering". There may be other ways to achieve success but compassionate conservatism offers something sure-fire. It works when other methods don't. Marvin Olasky does write with the pedantism of the academic. If you get past that, however, the message is compelling. The book is a quick read.

I found this book to be very thought provoking. It doesn't matter if the reader agrees or disagrees with the author's point of view. The book gives the reader a great deal to think about with regard to our nations current welfare situation and the roll of "faith-based" organitions in the fight against poverty. While in the author's examples, I saw many positive example of successful help to the impoverished of America, I felt the author did fail to explain one thing. Mr. Olasky's held the belief that our government should help partially fund private groups that combat poverty because he sites them as being more influential. However, if funding goes to private as well as public programs, I simply see that as more spending. That is simply my opinion as a person with no political connections at all. Read the book. I think it is worth the few hours it takes to read.

Compassionate conservatism is not a platitude but a distinct social program. It aims to help the poor without compromising conservative principles  very conservative principles, very religious conservative principles. Marvin Olasky, one of its spokesman and advisor to George Bush when he was governor of Texas, has written an overview for the general reader. Actually, its for the general conservative reader, but liberals should take note.

Much of the book is a collection of essays recounting the authors visits to various antipoverty programs across the country, mostly privately run. The traditional programs (run by churches and charities) provide counseling, education, job training, and placement  the usual mix. The dropout rate is substantial, and most of those who graduate and get a job fail and return to poverty. I cant quarrel with this result. But only a minority of alcoholics, drug addicts, and the obese succeed in solving their problems, too. These are tough problems.. Its with greater pleasure that he relates encounters with compassionate conservatism antipoverty programs all privately run, generally by born-again Christians and their churches. These offer the same benefits plus a heavy dose of moral uplift, discipline, and abstinence. Anyone can enter, but once in the program they must toe the line. Use of alcohol and drugs means instant expulsion; so does irresponsibility, poor attendance, and laziness. There are no second chances.

So far none of this is objectionable or even particularly conservative. However, the author adds one feature he considers essential: religion. The programs he admires stress an aggressive, proselytizing, strictly moralistic fundamentalism. Many otherwise commendable leaders become unpleasantly self-righteous on the subject of God.

Because the government refuses to fund sectarian charities, they look upon bureaucrats with the contempt they reserve for the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. Olasky approves and quotes them at length. He also maintains that graduates of these programs do better. I havent the expertise to dispute this, and it seems reasonable that a despairing member of the underclass who accepts Jesus will become a more solid citizen. It works with alcoholics.

Nonfundamentalists will find this book irritating because the author makes no attempt to win them over. Yet wouldnt it be wonderful if Republicans took a genuine interest in fighting poverty? Democrats arent giving it more than lip service. Americans today dont place a high priority on correcting social injustice. They would oppose any Federal effort that involves spending tax money. As a result, the only political movement making a big noise about helping the poor are the compassionate conservatives. Why not give them a chance?

Thoughtful readers should hold their noses and persist to the end.

Marvin Olasky writes about a subject very close to his heart: Welfare Reform. After his 1992 book "The Tragedy of American Compassion" which was endorsed famously by Newt Gingrich, Olasky comes back with Compassionate Conservatism, a book based on the Bush Campaign slogan. Olasky makes excellent points in this book about the failure of government and government look-alikes to help reduce the welfare rolls. Instead, Olasky advocates faith-based organizations. Olasky paints a convincing picture. With his stories of traveling to various faith based organizations with his 14 year old son, Olasky show how they work, and why they should be given equal treatment by the government. Well written and convincing, Compassionate Conservatism is a powerful book, which is a godsend for conservatives, and a well needed slap in the face to big government liberals.

About a decade ago Marvin Olasky wrote "The Tragedy of American Compassion," a brilliant comparison of the true compassion (i.e. "suffering with") that we practiced before the Great Society and the deferral to government to do our caring that we practice today. Our honesty AND the practical results, of course, have both suffered beyond description under the latter scheme. However, rather than press the necessary solution of abandoning the use of government and entitlements to pretend to help our fellow man, Olasky in "Compassionate Conservatism" is himself bitten by the bug of liberalism, forsakes (unknowingly apparently) almost all of the wisdom of the early reformers that he collected in "Tragedy," and advocates using government to fund private charities. (What's conservative about establishing a Department of Caring and putting charity in the hands of a federal bureaucacy?) The practical implications for people needing discerning, demanding, face-to-face help stand to be horrendous. The scheme will give to bad charities that build dependence, make churches and synogogues into employers of grant writers rather than liaisons between caring givers and motivated recipients, and proliferate the unhelpful, expensive, and outright dangerous role of government (to mention just a few of its terrible consequences). Ironically, two of the best places to go to straighten out his thinking are (1) Olasky's own "Tragedy" book and (2) several of the small program directors in "Compassionate Conservatism" who tell him his idea is crazy and that they don't want this government money. The book becomes almost laughable (to everyone but Olasky apparently) in its untenablity when it acknowledges that the whole idea will produce good results and avoid catastrophic ones "depending on who is in charge of the government" (p. 185) and that "creation of a faith-based advocacy office in the Executive Office of the President would help enormously" (p. 195). (No, I'm not making up these quotes. I have a suspicious friend who opines that Olasky's book is simply a political ad promoting George W. Bush for president and Olasky himself for "Federal Director of Faith-Based Advocay," but I have too much respect for the author of "Tragedy" to want to believe it.) Skip this recent silliness, read "Tragedy," and wait for (even pray for) Olasky to return to his senses.

I was dissapointed by Olasky's "Compassionate Conservatism" -- I was looking for (and did not find) a more fuller and nuanced explanation of what compassionate conservatism is all about. The bulk of the book is focused on the relationship between U.S. governments, local and national, and what Olasky calls "faith-based" organizations that fight social ills such as poverty and homelessness. At times it sounds like an essay focused on why we should give more taxpayer funds to these organizations.

I was looking for, and did not find, what compassionate conservatism IS as an articulated political philosophy. While the author makes some criticisms of what he calls "social darwinian" conservatives who would rather let the poor suffer, there is no discussion about the implicit judgement that is made of the people whose lives are used as examples in the book. It would have been great if a cue had been taken from one of history's greatest moral lessons of all time -- namely, Jesus's refusal to judge Mary Magdalene.

Rather than philosophy, this book has much more emphasis on METHOD and TACTICS for what is the best way to attack social evils. The book is silent on the what "compassionate conservatives" think the role should be for grass-roots organizations that are more secular in nature --perhaps because many of these do not intrude on bureaucratic definitions of church-state separation.

I find it laughable to hear Left-wingers whine, complain, grumble and attack the author and mock the ideas without giving them full weight. . . such an approach lacks gravitas.

Olasky has written a well thought out perspective on defining what Compassionate Conservatism is (his breakthrough work "The Tragedy of American Compassion" served as the groundwork for the faith based approached that has inspired Gov. George W. Bush), and explains how it is the people of this great nation that will make a difference, not some government program.

It is the people who interact with the needy, not some nameless, faceless bureaucrat. It is a movement based on love, not some welfare caseworker doing it for the money. And because it's from the heart, it is far more effective.

Naysayers, well, they still support the failed policies of the last forty years that have created the disgrace of the inner cities that we have today. Thank you, Liberal Naysayers, everywhere.

Kudos to Marvin Olasky.

This book is not a scholarly tome, but a manifesto calling for increased government/religious interaction. Succinctly, Olasky argues that people are on welfare and in prison because they are spiritually weak, and that government programs cannot provide the spiritual foundation needed by these poor individuals to succeed in life. Government therefore needs to provide funds to religious ("faith-based") organizations that will not only feed these people's bodies, but their hungering souls as well. To do this the wall separating Church and State must be breached.

Of course, the devil is in the details, and Olasky has not provided many details to help us root him out. How, for instance, does the government determine what is a "good" faith-based program? How would we handle cases where, say, the Nation of Islam requests money for "faith based" efforts? What if someone needs help, but declines the religious message? Is he still served? What about people who do not want to be converted, or forced into practicing another religion?

Olasky's argument that the poor just need God is quite oddly 19th century. The author apparently believes that if everyone would be a good Christian, there would be no need for welfare or aide. Yet many of the poor devoutly believe, and still need help. Then there are the addicted, the handicapped, the insane, and those struggling with catastrophe. Nor does faith guarantee obedience to the law. The prisons are filled with people from faith-based backgrounds. Those young martyrs of Islam who surrender to God in suicide attacks are obviously devout, but frankly we'd all probably be better off if they were a little less so.

Finally, Olasky either fails to understand--or deceives his reader--when he implies all faiths are similar. They are not. He seems to think all religions seek to acquire massive numbers of converts. He even seems to think that some non-religious groups act like religious groups. Compassionate Conservatism would likely aide greatly crusading fundamentalist Christians which would use the opportunities to gain converts at taxpayer's expense. It is difficult to see how this proposal would assist less fundamentalist evangelical faiths, or secular groups such as Doctors Without Borders. It is ultimately unclear why the government should add Bob Jones University and its like to the nation's welfare roles.

As the author of this political manifesto, Olasky needed to determine his goal: to rally the faithful or to appeal to the unconverted. He chose the attempt the latter. But while Olasky is a competent writer, the text is neither inspiring nor in any way comforting. The text could have been far better organized.

The book contains one or two footnotes, no bibliography and, amazingly, no index.

If I could give this book only a half star, I would.

This book describes an America of the 1800's not the America of the 2lst century when religious groups would be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of need in this country even if they had the very abundant resources needed to meet the needs of its less fortunate citizens.

This book is scary when read in context of the possibility of George W. Bush, the most inexperienced man ever to seek the Office of the Presidency. The "miracle in Texas" has not worked and the hypocrisy that is rampant in this book and in the speeches of the man from Texas who does not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to perform the duties of the President in the 2lst century is even more so. This philosophy has not worked in that small experiment known as the "Texas Miracle", why should America trust it to work on a grand scale throughout the country? Marvin Olasky has had his five minutes of fame. This book will not extend it. It should only be read in the context of wanting to understand what the message is of the Republican party in the 2000 election since the candidates are not able to talk in clear, compelling language.

Olasky,who has published for racist Bob Jones's perodical "The World," is a strong apologist for death-penalty addict George W. Bush. Somehow, though, he's never spoken about about benefactors like Jones.

We can see the "miracle" Texas has become from Bush- guided by Olasky's philosophy.

The death penalty applied to probably innocent people. People who were denied DNA tests to prove their innocence. Pollution so bad it chokes schoolchildren.

Not to mention the unending hypocrisy of the War on Drugs.

Olasky's one of these guys that thinks religious indoctrination is "the" answer, but like his fellow-traveler, Michael Horrowitz, he can't escape his past.

Olasky's compassionate conservatism is just hypocrisy.