Helping NGOs Fight Poverty

RON SIDER

religious bias, threatened to take over many of the traditional roles of the church in education and care for the poor. In response, Dutch Calvinists led by Abraham Kuyper developed the theory of “sphere sovereignty”— i.e., God has established many societal institutions as With his endorsement of much of independent realms that rightly control President George W. Bush’s faith-based their own spheres. Instead of becoming initiative during his presidential cam- all-powerful and ever-present, governpaign and his subsequent actions as presi- ment should be limited and support these dent, Barack Obama has cemented this other institutions. But Kuyper also realconcept as a bipartisan consensus in ized that an unrestricted market econAmerican politics. But the liberal-con- omy was just as great a danger to family, servative battles over Bush’s initiative and church, and other community institutions the inherent weaknesses of his vision as was an all-powerful government. The practical implication of this social produced a faith-based initiative which theory was the vision that government was fundamentally inadequate for overrightly both places limits on market coming American poverty. capitalism and funds universal educaA brilliant new book by Lew Daly, tion/economic programs to empower God’s Economy: Faith-Based Initiatives and the poor. Furthermore, a great deal of the Caring State (University of Chicago the government funding for these proPress, 2009), places this whole debate grams should flow through a variety of over the initiative in a much broader NGOs. Churches and other religious context and shows us how its weakorganizations should be as free as other nesses could be corrected. groups to run schools and social service The core of Daly’s argument is that agencies, using government funds. ProBush’s faith-based initiative transcended moted by Christian Democratic political earlier debates between liberals and conservatives about anti-poverty programs parties, these ideas profoundly shaped (conservatives wanted to end govern- policies in education and social welfare, ment responsibility by privatizing wel- especially in Holland and Germany. As fare programs, and liberals wanted to a result, these countries have substanexpand government-run programs). tially less poverty than the US. Daly shows how these ideas — mediBuilding on ideas that originated in ated especially by James Skillen and European Christian Democratic circles, Stanley Carlson-Thies of the Center Bush (unlike Reagan libertarians) retained for Public Justice — influenced George a major role for government in comW. Bush. Bush argued that government bating poverty but greatly elevated the had an important role in overcoming role of faith-based organizations as the poverty. But he insisted that the organidelivery systems. Unfortunately, Bush’s zations delivering social services using uncritical embrace of a largely unregovernment funds should be greatly strained market economy prevented him expanded. He insisted on a “level playfrom understanding another key aspect ing field” that no longer discriminated of European Christian Democracy — i.e., not only an all-powerful state but against faith-based organizations in the also an unrestrained market can and does distribution of government funds. That, Daly argues, produced a major, positive destroy families and communities. In the 19th century strong national shift in American anti-poverty programs. Unfortunately, President Bush failed governments, often with a vigorous antiPRISM 2 0 1 0

to grasp another crucial aspect of European Christian Democrats. Bush uncritically embraced the view that there should be very few restrictions on the market economy. The vast majority of his tax cuts went to the richest 25 percent instead of empowering the poorer segments of society, and he failed largely to expand effective programs to empower the poor. In spite of President Bush’s new, significant faith-based initiative, the number of Americans in poverty steadily increased during his presidency. Understanding what Bush got right and wrong helps us see how to do it better. He was right in rejecting the dominant Reagan-Republican push to abandon governmental responsibility to alleviate poverty. He was also right to embrace a much wider role for NGOs in the delivery of government-funded antipoverty programs. Tragically, President Bush failed to provide enough funding to combat poverty and failed to see how an unrestrained market economy threatens families and communities just as much as an all-powerful government. The way forward, therefore, is to strengthen, not weaken, the role of a wide variety of agencies in the delivery of government-funded anti-poverty programs. That includes adequately protecting the religious identity of faithbased organizations. But the state must act to place effective restraints on markets in order to reduce their negative impact on families and communities. It must also expand funding for effective programs that reduce poverty.The common good trumps unrestrained private economic self-interest. To embrace that whole agenda, both liberals and conservatives will have to abandon one-sided views and partisan bickering. Hopefully large numbers of Christians and others of goodwill in both parties will insist that both Democrats and Republicans adopt this more holistic agenda for the common good. Q