Barack Obama says, “We need all hands on deck.” Either he doesn’t really mean that or his new push to perpetuate George W. Bush’s “faith-based programs” is mostly empty.
If he really meant “all hands,” then he wouldn’t be talking about helping religious groups, but every social or charity group, including the non-religious ones. (Or at least he wouldn’t be talking up the “faith-based” aspect of his plan.) But he is focusing on the religious groups, despite knowing very well that no government action that advances religion will pass constitutional muster. The government cannot just give money to religious groups for charitable purposes, but refuse to give it to other groups who want to do the same kinds of things. So, really, what good will this do?
In other words, if you’re hip to the scene, you can probably recognize this as a fairly cynical pander to religious people.
Religious people comprise a big portion of the electorate. That’s fine. Whatever. For the ones who stand to get ahold of a little extra dough through this program, this move may factor into their ultimate decision to vote for Barack Obama. But here are a couple things to think about:
First, if people who run “faith-based programs” can’t seem to convince their own “faithful” constituents to cough up enough money to get anything done, then why should taxpayers be giving them any money? This applies to any private group that stands to receive federal money.
Second, if you decide who to vote for in a presidential election based on which candidate panders to your religious beliefs, then you are severely confused about the purpose of politics, which is entirely secular. Political structures like governments are not designed to bring down benefits on particular groups or individuals, such as religious organizations, but to provide a mechanism for collective decision-making about issues of general or universal interest to the members of that political unit. For Americans, that ought to mean things like foreign policy, infrastructure, and whether or how much to regulate industry and the economy.
If you vote for candidates because of their religious beliefs, or because of their support for religious beliefs, then you are missing the point. Candidates like Barack Obama should not have to try and get your votes by pandering to your politically irrelevant hobbyhorses with things like “faith-based programs.”