ON JULY 11, THE HOUSE Ways and Means Committee approved one part of President Bush’s faith-based initiative when it passed a measure permitting those who don’t itemize their taxes to deduct charitable contributions. In a statement, the president praised the committee for its vote and predicted the legislation would stimulate more charitable giving, thus enabling faith-based organizations to “help those in need.” Bush said he would “continue to work on a bipartisan basis with Members of the House and the Senate” to make his initiative a reality. Surely, on this particular policy effort, things must be going well for the Bush administration? Actually, no. For even as Ways and Means was acting (in support of a much smaller deduction than the administration wants), the White House was still reeling from the public-affairs disaster that had befallen a different aspect of the president’s initiative—one involving “charitable choice.” Charitable choice is a policy that recognizes the potential utility of faith-based social services in addressing the nation’s most pressing social problems. Under charitable choice, the government may not discriminate on the basis of religion against otherwise qualified providers applying for social-service funds, nor may it intrude upon the religious autonomy of faith-based organizations that receive such funds, which must serve all comers regardless of their beliefs. On several occasions since 1996, Congress has inserted charitable choice into social-service programs. Bush is seeking legislation that would extend the principle to such programs generally. Charitable choice enjoys broad support; both Al Gore and George W. Bush endorsed it during the presidential campaign. But it has always had critics, including many on the left who say that charitable choice encourages discrimination. This accusation had not made it much beyond the websites of left-wing activists until July 10, when the Washington Post, citing “an internal Salvation Army document,” reported that the administration “is working with the nation’s largest charity, the Salvation Army, to make it easier for government-funded religious groups to practice hiring discrimination against gay people.” According to the document, the White House had made a “firm commitment” to the Army that it would write a regulation protecting charities receiving federal funds from local efforts to prevent discrimination against gays in hiring and to mandate domestic-partner benefits. “In turn,” said the Post, the Army had agreed to promote the administration’s faith-based initiative by spending as much as $110,000 monthly to lobby in its behalf. The Post treated the Army’s internal document as an authoritative representation of the story, failing to note that the document may have been merely the enthusiastic product of, as a spokesman for the Army told me it was, “an overly hopeful” author. Nor did the Post try to illumine the motives of the source whence the document was “obtained”—whose identity is precisely what you’d most like to know when reading this kind of story. In a conspicuous wink to the leaker(s), the Post noted the document’s statements that “the Salvation Army’s role will be a surprise to many in the media” and thus efforts should be made to “minimize the possibility of any ‘leak’ to the media.” The Post did include the comment of a White House spokeswoman disputing the document’s claim that the administration had made a “firm commitment.” But the paper left the clear impression that there had been a transaction between the Salvation Army and the White House, a quid pro quo that required a devious course of action on the part of the president. “The document,” declared the Post, assuming full interpretive mode, “suggests President Bush is willing to achieve through regulation ends too controversial to survive the legislative process.” Substantively, the story was incomplete on issues of law, failing to explore the technical merits, or lack thereof, of the Salvation Army’s proposed regulation. No matter. The story drew thundering reaction from Democrats on Capitol Hill. Senate Democrats warned that issuance of the regulation described in the Post story “might terminally wound” (senator Joseph Lieberman’s words) the president’s charitable-choice legislation. House Democrats called for an investigation, no less. Bad faith on the part of a White House willing to engage in “secret deals,” as Senate majority leader Tom Daschle put it, was widely presumed. White House officials denied any “deals” with the Army and said they were merely considering the kind of regulation the group had proposed. Shortly before the network anchors could read the day’s news, however, officials announced that there was no need for the regulation. It would have denied assistance to local and state authorities that required religious charities to (in the document’s words) “adopt terms or practices for those with religious responsibilities” or provide employment benefits, if doing so was “inconsistent with the beliefs and practices” of the organization. White House officials said, however, that current law, together with that which the administration is now seeking, would be enough to ensure that faith-based providers could hire whom they wished. You can argue that the administration had no other choice than to act as it did and cut its losses quickly. Yet the episode revealed a White House unable or perhaps even unwilling to argue an important case. Leaving aside whether the regulation the Army sought was advisable or not (and arguably, for technical reasons of law, it was not), administration officials failed to explain why faith-based providers should not be asked to act in ways that violate their own religious beliefs—as would happen, for example, if the Salvation Army were asked to pay health or disability benefits for a “domestic partner.” (In fact, the Army was asked to do just that—by San Francisco. The Army said it wouldn’t, citing its doctrines, and eventually decided to quit providing services in the city.) Faith-based providers are unlikely to do their good works unless they maintain their religious identity. Necessarily, the nation is unlikely to benefit as much as it might if those providers, upon the insistence of government, become something they are not and thus lose their unique capacities. Ultimately, the issue here is, or at least ought to be, not “discrimination” but helping the poor and needy with the most effective programs. And it would be foolish to assume that secular providers do a better job than faith-based ones. As Congress takes up charitable choice legislation in coming weeks, administration officials doubtless will be asked to offer their views on these matters. Obviously, the administration will have to be better prepared to argue crucial legal and philosophical points than it was the day the Post story broke. If it is, that story, tendentious though it was, will have served a useful purpose. Terry Eastland is publisher of The Weekly Standard.
