|
For Republicans who fear that the Foley scandal might keep Evangelicals away
from the polls in November, here comes another challenge—in hardcover format. A
new memoir by David Kuo, former second-in-command of President Bush's Office of
Faith-Based Initiatives, has the White House on the defensive with its account
of an Administration that mocked Evangelicals in private while using them at
election time to bolster its support. In this exclusive adaptation from the
book, Kuo writes about how his White House experiences left him disillusioned
about the role religion can play in politics. I stepped into the Oval Office to find President George W. Bush prowling
behind his desk looking for something. "Kuo!" he said without looking up. "Tell
me about this meeting."

It was June 2003, and I was deputy director of the White House Office of
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The office had opened in the West Wing in
2001 to support the President's campaign promise of $8 billion a year in new
funding for both religious and secular charities that helped the poor. That
money never materialized, however, and I was increasingly stuck with the task of
explaining to religious groups why the White House was so bad at helping them do
good. This meeting, with a group of prominent African-American pastors who had
supported Bush's plan, promised to be no different. I began to brief the
President on the pastors, recommending that he talk about the administrative
reforms we had implemented, and the tax credits we were still fighting for ...
He interrupted. "Forget about all that. Money. All these guys care about is
money. They want money. How much money have we given them?" I never doubted the
President's own faith or desire to help those who, like him, had once been lost
in a world of alcohol or, unlike him, had struggled with poverty or drugs.
Because I shared his faith and his vision of compassionate conservatism, I had
been a very good soldier. When members of his senior staff mocked the plan as
the "f___ing faith-based initiative," I didn't say a word. When his
legislative-affairs team summarily dismissed our attempts to shoehorn our
funding into the budget, I smiled and continued trying to work neatly within the
system. When I heard staff privately deriding evangelical Christians because
they were so easily seduced by White House power, I raised an eyebrow but not a
ruckus. Like everyone else in the small faith-based office, I didn't speak too
loudly or thunder too much. We were the nice guys.
Today, however, I decided to choose honesty over niceness. Two months
earlier, I had been diagnosed with a brain tumor that required intensive surgery
and rehabilitation. This was my first meeting with the President and Karl Rove
since my return. Something about undergoing brain surgery had made me reflect
about whether I had really been doing a public service by pretending that our
office had been living up to its commitments.
I glanced over at Karl and turned to look the President in the eye. "Sir,
we've given them virtually nothing," I said, "because we have had virtually
nothing new to give." The President had been looking down at some papers about
the event, but his head jerked up. "Nothing? What do you mean we've given them
nothing?" He glared. "Don't we have new money in programs like the Compassion
Fund thing?"
I looked again at Karl. He seemed stunned at what I was saying. "No, sir," I
told the President. "In the past two years we've gotten less than $80 million in
new grant dollars." The number fell shockingly short of the $8 billion he had
vowed to deliver in the first year alone.
The President's staff didn't just bad-mouth the faith-based office behind
closed doors. Their political indifference also kept us from getting the funding
we needed so badly. No episode captured that more clearly than the 2001
negotiations over the President's $1.7 trillion tax cut. In those final
negotiations with the Senate and House, the White House voluntarily dropped a
centerpiece of the President's compassion promise: a provision to allow 80% of
Americans to get credit for their charitable contributions.
Now the President seemed shocked at the news that the Compassion Fund was a
pittance. "What?! What do you mean?" he asked. Karl, still caught off guard,
protested. "But what about the other money? You know, the money we've opened up
to new charities."
I hated any clash with Karl. Especially now. The morning after my tumor
diagnosis, Karl was among the first people to call. "I know what you are going
through," he said. "I've spent more days and nights of my life than I can count
in a cancer ward." He explained that his wife was a double breast-cancer
survivor, encouraged me for the fight ahead, and offered any assistance I
needed. Now, less than two months later, I was standing in front of the
President exposing an ugly truth that Karl would rather not have discussed:
after two years in office, we had actually spent less than 1% of what Bush had
promised.
I was also contradicting our office's own spin. In an effort to divert
attention from all the money that wasn't being given to faith-based groups, we
had come up with the idea of highlighting the amount of money now "available" to
faith-based organizations because of particular administrative reforms announced
six months earlier. It was one of those wonderful Washington assertions that is
simultaneously accurate and deceptive and just confusing enough to defy
opposition. On the one hand, we had eliminated some ancient and patently absurd
regulations, many of them promulgated under seemingly faith-phobic Democratic
Administrations, that discriminated against faith-based groups simply because
they might have a religious-sounding name. The Metropolitan Council on Jewish
Poverty, for instance, was once denied the chance to apply for a federal grant
even though it was an entirely secular organization.
On the other hand, faith-based groups had actually been getting chunks of
that money for decades, and the regulations we put in place really didn't tackle
the biggest problem facing secular and religious nonprofits. That problem was
the general bureaucratic unfriendliness of the Federal Government to small,
local organizations—precisely the kind that compassionate conservatives like
Bush (and I) thought could do the best job tackling ingrained poverty and
hopelessness on the community level. We were supposed to give these small groups
their first shot, but without any money, our office was resigned to making
mostly symbolic changes.
None of that had stopped the White House from trumpeting the changes as
hugely significant and leading religious conservatives to believe they were
highly consequential. Christian conservatives trusted President Bush. After two
years in the White House, I had come to realize that regardless of where the
President's heart lay on the matter, the back-office Republican political
machine was able to take Evangelicals for granted—indeed, often viewed them with
undisguised contempt—and still get their votes. G.O.P. operatives trusted that
Christian conservatives would see the President more as their Pastor in Chief
than anything else. Bush had long used the podium as a pulpit, telling voters
that above all he was an evangelical Christian who had been saved from his
drinking by Jesus and rebuilt his life around his faith. That inspirational
story was carried throughout the country by a network of prominent evangelical
pastors who had been quietly working since 1998 to recruit thousands of other
pastors to join the Bush team. After the election, however, those same pastors
became accomplices in their own deception by not demanding that the President's
actions in office match their electoral fervor.
This White House is certainly not the first Administration to milk religious
groups for votes and then boot them unceremoniously back out to pasture. In his
days as a notorious "hatchet man" for President Richard M. Nixon, before he had
allowed Jesus to transform his life, Chuck Colson used to oversee outreach to
the religious community. "I arranged special briefings in the Roosevelt Room for
religious leaders, ushered wide-eyed denominational leaders into the Oval Office
for private sessions with the President," Colson later wrote. "Of all the groups
I dealt with, I found religious leaders the most naive about politics. Maybe
that is because so many come from sheltered backgrounds, or perhaps it is the
result of a mistaken perception of the demands of Christian charity ... Or, most
worrisome of all, they may simply like to be around power."
I finished the briefing. Yes, I told the President, because of new
regulations there was technically about $8 billion in existing funding that was
now more accessible to faith-based groups. But, I assured him, those
organizations had been getting money from those programs for years and it wasn't
that big a deal.
"Eight billion in new dollars?" he asked.
"No, sir. Eight billion in existing dollars where groups will find it
technically easier to apply for grants. But faith-based groups have been getting
that money for years."
"Eight billion," he said. "That's what we'll tell them. Eight billion in new
funds for faith-based groups. O.K., let's go."
We headed out of the Oval Office, down a flight of stairs and over to the Old
Executive Office Building, where the pastors awaited us. The President walked
into the room, traded a few jokes and told the group that because of the
faith-based initiative, billions of dollars in new funds were now available to
faith-based groups like theirs. The pastors listened respectfully. Before the
President left, they prayed for him.
Karl stayed behind to share some thoughts and answer questions. "Before I get
started, I want to say something. This initiative isn't political," he told
them. "If I walked into the Oval Office and said it was going to be political,
the President would bash my head in."
Then the questions began. "Since the President brought up money, where,
exactly is that money?" asked one pastor. "We've talked to the Cabinet
Secretaries, and they say there isn't any new money." They peppered him with
questions for several minutes. Finally he smiled at them and said, "Tell you
what, I'm going to get those guys in a room and bash some heads together and get
to the bottom of this. I'll be back in touch with you." He left confidently.
At the meeting's end, several of the pastors said they wanted to pray for my
healing. They placed their hands on my shoulder and called on God to hear their
prayers on my behalf. I listened and loved it and said a prayer of my own: that
I would have the courage to tell them what was really going on at the White
House.
That was more than three years ago. Their prayers have worked on my body. I
am still here and very much alive. Now I am finding the courage to speak out
about God and politics and their dangerous dance. George W. Bush, the man, is a
person of profound faith and deep compassion for those who suffer. But President
George W. Bush is a politician and is ultimately no different from any other
politician, content to use religion for electoral gain more than for good works.
Millions of Evangelicals may share Bush's faith, but they would protect
themselves—and their interests—better if they looked at him through the same
coldly political lens with which he views them.
Adapted from the book Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political
Seduction by David Kuo, published by Free Press
(The above article first appeared in time.com)
|