"A Good Man"

Writing about the David Kuo piece I discuss below, Amy Sullivan notes that Kuo make the seemingly obligatory "Bush is a good guy" claim before launching into his policy critique. She goes on to say:

But I guess this is where liberals and conservatives diverge. I'd much rather see the country run by a jerk of a guy who forgets his secretary's birthday and can't be bothered to remember staff member's names (much less give them nicknames) but whose policies make life better for MILLIONS OF PEOPLE than a president who gets along well with his staff and friends but whose policies hurt others.

I think this is basically right, but I also think that the real issue goes deeper. Many conservatives, it seems to me, believe that a person's public actions can only be evaluated in the light of that person's private character. Many liberals, on the other hand, seem comfortable divorcing the two and evaluating the public and the private separately and independently.

I'm fairly certain this difference has something to with the way conservatives and liberals tend to approach the issues of grace, salvation, and the possibility of a secular morality, and I'll leave a more detailed description as an exercise for the reader. But every time I hear Bush say "he's a good man" in an attempt to excuse disastrous public policy decisions that get lots of people hurt or killed, it only confirms my belief that Bush's brand of morality, regardless of how deeply held, is essentially sterile.

First DiIulio, Now Kuo

In 2002, you might remember, John DiIulio, who headed up Bush's "faith-based initiatives" program, publicly scolded the White House for its driving need of prioritize politics at the expense of public policy. Today, that complaint is taken up by David Kuo, the former deputy director in the same office.

First, says Kuo, the "compassionate" part of Bush's trademarked "compassionate conservatism" was not an important objective for the policy that was supposed to be its exemplification.

Capitol Hill gridlock could have been smashed by minimal West Wing effort. No administration since LBJ's has had a more successful legislative track record than this one. From tax cuts to Medicare, the White House gets what the White House really wants. It never really wanted the "poor people stuff."

What the White House did want, however, was a very public illustration of Bush's religious faith. That it got in spades, essentially for free, and with the blessings of Bush's most prominent Christian conservative backers.

Conservative Christian donors, faith leaders, and opinion makers grew to see the initiative as an embodiment of the president's own faith. Democratic opposition was understood as an attack on his personal faith. And since this community's most powerful leaders - men like James Dobson of Focus on the Family - weren't anti-poverty leaders, they didn't care about money. The Faith-Based Office was the cross around the White Houses' neck showing the president's own faith orientation. That was sufficient.

Kuo is right about the administration's preference for conservatism at the expense of compassion, and hearing this truth told by a former White House staffer is refreshing in a way. But I feel it necessary to note that Kuo isn't telling any secrets here — he's just looking at the public record and putting it in context. Bush's use and abuse of faith is there for anyone to see. If more would only try.