The Faith-Based Initiative As a Means to An End

by rayman

I realize that simply providing an approving link to a blogger along with a "read the whole thing" tag is a very Instapundit-like thing to do, but this Mark Schmitt post is so wholesomely delicious that I couldn't resist. In the context of discussing David Kuo's disillusionment with the Faith-Based Initiative, Schmitt writes:

If we were to propose something like the faith-based initiative, it would be because we literally wanted to deliver services through churches and thought that religious groups needed to play a bigger role in social services. When the Bush-DeLay crowd proposes such a thing, it's because they want to make sure they get the votes of people who believe this thing. They themselves don't give a s***: "White House indifference" is Kuo's diagnosis.

Shortly after the Gingrich takeover of Congress, a colleague of mine said, "You should never underestimate the degree to which they don't give a s***. It's their strength." A decade of observation later, I think that aphorism is about 80% true. "They" -- the particular faction of the Republican party that currently holds power -- give a s*** about a few things: Taxes. They don't like taxes. Lawsuits. Social Security. Regulation. The minimum wage. As a college classmate of mine's father once said, after a few martinis, "There hasn't been a good day in this country since Franklin Roosevelt became president." Those are their core beliefs. And I do believe that some portion of the right feels very strongly about abortion. The rest of it , though -- "compassionate conservatism," anti-gay-marriage, anti-small government, Medicare prescription drug benefits -- are all just rhetorical means to an end.

It is a subtle difference, but liberals have to respond in different ways to opponents who really believe that gay marriage is threatening to their value system, as opposed to those who don't give a s*** about it, but believe there is a political advantage to be gained by stoking the fear and intolerance of others.

This last paragraph is the key. We know, based on the secretly recorded conversation just released, that Bush isn't a raving homophobe, but simply used the gay marriage cudgel to whip his troglodyte supporters into a frothing rage. And it worked. Again. I'd certainly like to hear Schmitt's take on how we should respond to this "subtle difference," but this is certainly an illuminating start.