Compassionate Conservatism: What it is, What it Does, and How it Can Transform America

Here is what the Institute for First Amendment Studies says about Marvin Olasky and the author of the preamble of his latest "piece" above, George W Bush, Republican candidate for your President.

Considerably less well known is the professorial pundit Marvin Olasky. Working mostly behind the scenes since 1993, Olasky has probably, more than any other individual, influenced George W. Bush's recent direction in politics.

Olasky is the only conservative mentioned in this article that is not a member of the Council for National Policy. A 1971 Yale graduate and prolific author, he probably wouldn't have time for its meetings. Olasky has written 13 books and co-authored a half-dozen others. His latest, Compassionate Conservativism: What It Is, What It Does, and How It Can Transform America (Free Press), came out this year. George W. Bush wrote its foreword.

Olasky, a bearded professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, believes that abortion is murder, and serves on the board of the Austin Crisis Pregnancy Center, an antiabortion counseling facility. Antiabortion activist Dr. John Wilke refers to Olasky as "my good friend."

As an elder in the Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Olasky embraces a Christian Reconstruction worldview. Calvinist/Presbyterian theologian RJ Rushdoony, founder of Chalcedon, instituted Christian Reconstruction in America. Chalcedon, based in northern California, is the leading center of the Christian Reconstruction movement, and its literature has had a profound impact on the politics of the Christian right. Named after the Council of Chalcedon of 451 ACE, in which the Lordship of Christ was proclaimed, the organization's purpose is to establish Old Testament biblical law as the standard for society.

Christian Reconstructionism mandates Christ's dominion over the entire world, believing that the Kingdom of God on earth is built not only by evangelism, but also by the implementation of Biblical law.

Born into a Jewish family in the suburbs of Boston, Marvin Olasky, who is now 50, became an atheist and Marxist before converting to Christianity in 1976. He quickly made up for his waywardness. Today, in addition to his aforementioned accomplishments, Olasky serves as editor for World magazine.

Similar to Time and Newsweek in format, World is the only weekly newsmagazine that covers current events and politics with a biblical perspective. Every week, from January of this year, right up to the election, this tax-exempt magazine is being hand-delivered to every member of Congress. The slick magazine's corporate name is God's World Publications, and it is owned by Bob Jones University in South Carolina. Of course, Bob Jones University is where George W. Bush caught flak because of the university's racist past and its teachings that, among other things, Mormonism is a cult and Catholics won't go to heaven.

In his book Compassionate Conservatism, Olasky carefully crafts an argument in favor of government funding for "faith-based" (religious) organizations as a cure-all for the nation's ills. In the beginning of the book he points to a study done in the 1980s by Howard Ahmanson, "a Christian conservative."

According to Jerry Sloan, president of the California watchdog group Project Tocsin, Howard Ahmanson was a member of Rushdoony's Chalcedon board of trustees for almost 23 years, until his retirement in 1995. Sloan reports that over the years Ahmanson gave the Christian Reconstructionist group over a million dollars from his own pocket or through his Fieldstead Foundation (Olasky has served as a consultant for Ahmanson's Fieldstead & Company.). Sloan told Penthouse that Ahmanson is most noted for telling the Orange County Register that he wanted to use his fortune to see "biblical law integrated into our everyday lives."

In his book, Olasky writes approvingly of Ahmanson, saying that his study "found that poverty around the world is a spiritual as well as a material problem B most poor people don't have faith that they and their situations can change."

Governor Bush agrees. He told Christianity Today that faith-based organizations succeed where others fail "because they change hearts.they convince a person to turn their life over to Christ."

Red flags should go up while reading Olasky's book on Bush's compassionate conservatism. When Olasky endorses Bush's allowing the evangelical Prison Fellowship to run a program in a Texas prison, where the inmates attend bible classes instead of watching television, some might wonder what happened to the separation between church and state. Olasky argues that the First Amendment's "primary goal was freedom for religion, not freedom from religion," and that there's nothing about separation of church and state in the Constitution. He quotes a certain Olgen Williams, an elderly part-time preacher: "Separation of church and state is for people who went to law school, and all they got to do is argue constitutional law."

Although Olasky claims that "no one today is proposing a move toward multiple establishment of religion B worship services are clearly activities with which the state should not be involved," he believes that faith-based groups that receive government funding for their social work should be allowed to proselytize their charges.

In his interview with Christianity Today, Bush was asked point-blank about government funding for faith-based organizations: "Won't this plan blur the line between church-state separation?"

Bush replied, "That's the big question. I don't think it will. And the reason is that we're funding people and programs, not institutions. Some of my opponents worry about proselytization. I believe the power of the church is its capacity to change the heart, and we should not force the church to change its mission."

Olasky admits that, "Even evangelically oriented funders are well aware that faith in Christ is not sufficient in itself to build a successful organization. They know that not every faith-based organization is a winner and that Christians can be as bad at charity as anyone else." But he offers a solution to this potential dilemma if government were to fund such groups. "A White House office of advocacy for faith-based organizations could use the presidential bully pulpit to shine a spotlight on the good groups."

But what Olasky and George W. Bush B the man who wants to be America's president B are ignoring is the obvious fact that our government already recognizes the value of churches and other faith-based organizations. That is why they are tax-exempt B which translates into billions of dollars a year in taxpayer support.

We asked Olasky, who is friendly and personable, to explain exactly where his candidate stands on the abortion issue. "He's against abortion," Olasky told Penthouse, "but for some reason he doesn't want to talk about it. He's particularly interested in compassionate alternatives to abortion, like adoption. He's said his favorite Supreme Court justices are [Antonin] Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas." As these two are the most extreme conservatives on the court (and neither one is especially known for his compassion), Bush's choices of judicial heroes should be of little comfort to the vast majority of Americans who believe that a woman has the right to control her own body.

Not surprisingly, Marvin Olasky's first choice for the White House was Alan Keyes, the ultraconservative talk show host. But Olasky told Penthouse, "I think Governor Bush is the only realistic alternative for Christian conservatives He's been trustworthy in Texas; we need to pray that, if he is elected, he won't 'go Washington' like so many folks do."

While this is their prayer, the leaders of the radical right are meanwhile practicing patience. If they just stay "below the radar" and let George W. do his thing until Election Day, they hope to reap the rewards in the end.

Reprinted by permission of Penthouse B) 2000 General Media Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

B) 2000 Institute for First Amendment Studies, Inc.

Yes I understand these comments are from a Leftist organization. But I also understand much of it is fact, like it or not detractors.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 26, 2000

Answers

Hey Doc,

Why'd ya stop there. Why don't you go on and tell us how "W" isn't smart enough to be President. Or how he is gonna take away your social security or medicare. Or how even though he received 70% of the vote down here last time, everyone here thinks he is a lousy Governor. Or that he is really the "Boogie Man". I guess when you can't defend the other guy, you better attack "W" and hope you can scare everybody into voting for blood and guts.

Ooops.

-- Ooops (Ooops@slipofthetongue.com), October 26, 2000.

Gee, "Oops", funny you should mention that bit about attacking the other guy. I just wrote on another board this AM that as far as I've seen, I have yet to witness a Bush supporter actually discussing an issue. And many of them merely bash Clinton (who, BTW, isn't running).

Heh. Go figure.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), October 26, 2000.

Marvin Olasky, "a bearded professor of journalism...".

Boy! Sure glad we don't have any of these in California.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), October 26, 2000.

Carlos, you're a scream :-)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), October 26, 2000.

As these two are the most extreme conservatives on the court (and neither one is especially known for his compassion), Bush's choices of judicial heroes should be of little comfort to the vast majority of Americans who believe that a woman has the right to control her own body.

"and neither one is especially known for his compassion"---compassion as defined by Liberals. Don't define a word to suit yourself and then criticize those who deviate from your own definition. Criticize their definition.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 26, 2000.

Is this the definition of compassion any better Lars?

Bush:::Against using U.S. forces to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide in nations outside the U.S. strategic interest, though he would use diplomatic instruments to encourage international organizations and other states to intervene. Link...H umanitarian Intervention

Course "startegic interests" would be what? Oil? Which is of course an interest, no question. But does this Bush position indicate anything which you would really consider compassionate? Sounds like passing the buck to me. Stopping at organizations he is pretty much against like the United Nations.

Problem with a Bush is this. He is no fan of Abortion. Even this is watered down, lest anyone be confused, Bush would push for efforts to throw the Abortion issue back on the States. Truth is, Bush is Pro- Life. He however has little trouble passing the buck in the face of Genocide and Ethinic Cleansing of countless other undebatable human beings if it will buy votes.

Understand, I DO NOT believe he is serious on this seeming contradiction. What this is, is pandering to Conservatives. Most of them are Pro-Life. Many are against being the world's policeman for anything beyond protecting our white western allies, big business interests, and flexing the military and keeping up moral by exercises like a Grenada every so often.

Most Conservatives cannot stand the UN. You will notice the UN is not mentioned in the above summary from the CFR website. He is avoids using the UN-word because BUSH is NO IDIOT, he understands the drill, and can read the script. He understands his followers hate the UN. So here he uses this way of not saying UN in his campaign;;;use diplomatic instruments to encourage international organizations and other states to intervene. If it ain't the UN, or the equally disliked NATO, then who is it then? these international organizations? He is covering his butt for any future support for the UN and/or NATO, plain as that.

The above stand by Bush above is little more than playing on the beliefs by most Conservatives that Kosovo is a waste of time.

Bush will follow the CFR plans. If there would be a difference between him and Gore, it will be in the use of force. Bush is old school and would have little trouble sending in the boys in easy score situations. Not that this is bad. But understand, Bush and Gore are mere puppets and do what they are told on the grand plan, MHO.

Bush's National Security Advisor is Condoleezza Rice. She was inside Bush Seniors WhiteHouse, and will take a similar position in Dubya's administration if he is elected. Rice is pure CFR, pure NWO as it is known. I think Bush Sr. was the one who coined the term NWO in fact.

Rice has ditched much of her NWO/CFR stances and is following the Bush script as to get elected these days. Again, an indication she as well is playing the pandering game in direct conflict with what she is really about.

I think it important to point out just how damn the same the 2 yo-yos running for President really are. Most Conservatives believe otherwise. One could also say this of Liberals, and I would agree. These two candidates represent ONE party. Their differences are largely cosmetic or based on issues which have little to do with the goals of Multi-National Corporations(conservatives) and the NWO builders(liberals). These type of issues also play a "strategic" role in building division, wasting time, and creating general apathy and cynicism among the majority of Americans. Which translates into an easy framework to push thru their goals without much of a stink at all. This has been the history for at least the past 3 decades in my belief.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 27, 2000.

DP--

I'll just respond to your last paragraph. If Bush and Gore are so alike then why is there so much passion on each side in this forum? Sure, Bush and Gore are closer together than Nader and Browne but I see their differences as more than cosmetic.

World's policeman? Pax Americana? I don't think that is possible in general. We got lucky in the Balkans (white people BTW). What would you advise if a total breakdown of peace occurs in the Middle East? How about Pakistan/India, etc, etc, etc?

I think it is a big enough job for the US to be ever able to protect ourselves and our most critical allies (regardless of their color). I have never been in battle so I am reluctant to opine on what Americans should die for.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 27, 2000.