Reconsidering Bush’s “Compassionate” Conservatism

After I had read his book, The Man in the Middle, I had the pleasure of speaking with Tim Goeglein, who from 2001 to 2008 was one of George W. Bush’s longest-serving aides, as Deputy Director of the Office of Public Liaison.  I was struck in particular by his testament to the president’s compassion.  Although he famously flubbed his lines in speeches, and some of his Bush-isms are now a part of our common tongue (like strategiary and misunderestimated), Bush was deeply loved by those who worked with him.  People were not only impressed by his ability to glad-handle and work a room (as they were with Clinton), but by the genuine care and grace the President demonstrated in his relationships with them.

Personally, I’ve sometimes wondered whether “compassionate conservatism” came out, in effect, to big-government conservatism.  I no longer think that’s the case.  Although Bush expanded government spending, he often directed that spending in ways that did not further bloat the government bureaucracy but, instead, empowered churches and ministries and other organizations in the private sector to do their work.  In those cases where he did permanently expand government entitlements, I think he was genuinely trying to help — and was ill-served by some of his political aides.  Please consider the following parts of the interview, including the author’s stunning story of sin and forgiveness:

George W. Bush

The catch phrase, when President Bush first came to office in 2000, was “compassionate conservatism.” Do you think President Bush lived that out?

In my present role with Focus on the Family, I had to be up in South Africa earlier this year. Everywhere I went, whether for business meetings or ministry meetings, I was amazed at how highly regarded George W. Bush is in Africa. That’s a direct result of his compassionate conservatism and his historic work battling AIDS and malaria there. The President’s PEPFAR initiative against AIDS, and his anti-malarial program, stand among his most significant foreign policy achievements, and yet they’re little known or appreciated now, at least in the United States. I hope they will be recognized over time.

It’s worth revisiting what the President said when he spoke, in his first inaugural address, about the parable that Jesus told of the road to Jericho. The meaning of compassion stands at the very heart of that parable. The Priest and the Levite walk directly past the man who’s been injured and stripped naked. The Good Samaritan crosses the highway to help the man and pays for his care. Jesus says that the Good Samaritan had “compassion” on the injured man. We understand that in Christian scripture as having true mercy.

This is what George W. Bush meant by compassionate conservatism. It’s not that the federal government was going to come in and supply every need. Just the opposite. When George W. Bush gave one of the most important speeches of his Presidency, at Notre Dame, he was specifically countering Lyndon Johnson’s notion of the Great Society…What he wanted to do, and what was at the heart of compassionate conservatism, was to advance mercy and compassion by removing an institutional bigotry within the federal bureaucracy against faith-based programs that were turned away just because they were faith-based. George W. Bush made clear that the federal government was not going to buy the Bibles or the crucifixes, but they could further the good work that these faith-based organizations were doing.

And he was right. The private sector, the intermediary institution, the concept of subsidiarity, these were so important to President Bush. He believed in this mission, believed that faith-based groups were often addressing social ills more compassionately and more effectively than the government could do. Removing the institutional bigotry against faith-based programs was exactly the right thing to do.

So “compassionate conservatism” wasn’t just a campaign slogan to get him elected?

George W. Bush was sincerely one of the most compassionate people I’ve ever met. I saw this on multiple occasions. He treated the lowest staffer with the same respect he did a king, a queen, or a pope or prime minister. This was a direct result of his faith.

As you know, the first chapter of The Man in the Middle is about the grace and mercy and compassion he showed to me in a way that was very personal and, in the political classes, rather unparalleled. When you embarrass the president, the vice president, or the like, you immediately become persona non grata. They need to hold you at a great distance. You’re simply not invited to the White House and extended grace and compassion in the way the President did to me.

What I’m saying is, George W. Bush’s faith shaped not only his foreign and domestic policies but also the very basic ways in which he treated people. He had this gift and ability to connect with real people regardless of their station in life. It was indeed a very compassionate conservatism that he represented.

What do you say to those who assert that “compassionate conservatism” was code for “big-government conservatism”?

George W. Bush never spoke in code. George W. Bush is that rare politician—and I have worked in Washington for nearly twenty-five years, I’ve walked with the princes of this world—he is that rare politician who is the same in private as in public. He says what he means and means what he says.

Compassionate conservatism was not a euphemism or code. It represented, and represents, precisely who he was and is, as a result of his faith. It really was dramatized in George W. Bush’s visit (when he was Governor) to a prison in Texas where Chuck Colson and Prison Fellowship had become very active. The President saw the results of their ministry, and the way that their work was impacting these otherwise-very-hardened criminals. A seed was planted. George W. Bush came to see that there was an absolutely critical role for faith-based and community groups. They were the “little platoons” doing the most important work. He resolved that when he came to the Oval Office, he would take that model or paradigm and apply it nationally.

Compassionate conservatism was George W. Bush’s character and it was his commitment. It was not code or an effort to be clever.

You had your own experience of sin and grace when a reporter discovered that some words in unpaid pieces you wrote for a newspaper had been taken from other sources. You describe this in your book without flinching. What happened? How does someone in the White House, especially someone as savvy as yourself, start down that road? And how did the President respond when this came to his attention?

I’m pleased to be asked about this. Proverbs is correct: Pride goes before the fall. But in the words of T. S. Eliot, “humility is endless.”

In my time in the White House, I was becoming a very prideful person. This pride and vanity extended to plagiarizing columns for my hometown newspaper. I was not writing about politics, but about many other things that interested me. Pride takes many forms, and one of them is always wanting to be the brightest guy, the one with something interesting to say. I began plagiarizing these columns. I knew what I was doing, and I knew it was wrong.

One morning I came to work at the White House and when I opened my email I found a reporter asking whether this was true that I had plagiarized these columns. I literally fell to the side of my desk. I prayed, “Oh God, oh God.” I knew right away that the world as I had known it was over on that day. I felt, as I say in The Man in the Middle, that my world was collapsing. By return email, I told the reporter that it was entirely true, and I was guilty as charged. I had no one to blame but myself.

There are, in this world, two kinds of crises. One is where it’s beyond your control, and another is where you’re directly responsible. I was directly responsible, without excuse. I inflicted, as a result of my own sin, shame and embarrassment on the President, and on my colleagues and mentors. I had violated everything I believed in, and was a hypocrite to my wife and children and family. Categorically. So I resigned from the White House that day. That was on a Friday.

On a Monday, I came back to the White House to begin clearing out my desk and taking the pictures off the walls. I received a call from Josh Bolton, who had become a friend from the first Bush campaign when we met in Austin, Texas. Josh was now the Chief of Staff, and he said he wanted to see me. I presumed that would be the proverbial “woodshed” moment, which I thoroughly deserved.

The first thing he asked me was, “How are your wife and boys doing?” Then he extended to me his forgiveness. I was genuinely shocked and deeply moved by this. We spent a considerable amount of time together, and before I departed his office he said, “By the way, the boss wants to see you.”

So surely this, I thought, would be the woodshed moment, and again I completely deserved it. I expected other people to be there, but when I got to the Oval Office the only other person there was the executive assistant. I thought I must have come on the wrong day—but the President called me in. I thought: This is going to be really bad. I went in and closed the door.

I turned to him to apologize, but barely got the words out before he looked me in the eyes and said, “Tim, I forgive you.” To say I was stunned would be an understatement. I tried again to apologize, but he wouldn’t let me. He said, “Tim, I’ve known grace and mercy in my life. I’m extending it to you. You’re forgiven.”

I said, “You should have thrown me into Pennsylvania Avenue.” Again he said, “My friend, you’re forgiven. We can talk about all of this, or we can talk about the last eight years.”

I turned to sit on the couch in the Oval Office, but he directed me to the seat of honor beneath the portrait of Washington, where Heads of State sit. I sat there, and he and I had a conversation about two remarkable presidential campaigns, and what was at that point about seven-and-a-half years in the White House. I was by then one of the longest serving aides to the President. We embraced, and I thought this was the last time I would see George W. Bush. As I turned to head out, though, he said, “I want you to bring your wife and boys here, so I can tell them what a great job you’ve done.”

I was stunned and speechless. The leader of the free world, the most powerful man on earth, wanted to affirm me before my wife and children. Sure enough, my wife and boys came, the President gave them a great amount of time in the Oval Office and gave them gifts. We were invited back to the White House as a family on subsequent occasions. We were there at Andrews Air Force Base for his departure. I’ve seen the President a number of times in Texas and he’s never mentioned it again. So, in my mind, George W. Bush is and was grace personified.

So to go back to your earlier question about compassion: I was the wounded man on the side of the highway. I was totally and completely guilty and undeserving of the President’s forgiveness, and yet he gave it to me without reservation. He extended grace to me at the lowest point in my life.

Will the New Religious Right Make the Same Mistakes as the Old?

Are we witnessing a new awakening of religious conservatives to the political process?  Is that a good thing?  Or, rather, what safeguards might we put in place, what lessons might we learn from past failures, in order to make sure that this is a good thing?

I’m not eager to write another post that references Robert Jeffress, but the unflappable pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas raised several important issues when he promoted Rick Perry and called Mormonism a “cult” at the Values Voters Convention.  Those issues were: (1) Is it legitimate to include religious beliefs as a part of our assessment of a candidate? (2) Is it fair and accurate to say that Mormonism is a cult? And (3) is it appropriate for pastors to endorse political candidates?

I agree with Jeffress that “a candidate’s faith matters” and voters are not remiss in considering a candidate’s faith and how it might shape his or her actions (although I believe we should have greatest concern for the candidate’s values and character and how they would shape the candidate’s policy decisions and responses in crisis).  I do not believe a Christian should vote for a candidate simply because he is a Christian; but given equally qualified candidates, I cannot condemn a voter for choosing the one who shares his deepest convictions and intuitions about the world.  I just happen to believe that Mormons share an enormous expanse of moral, familial and social values with evangelicals, so I disagree with him that Mitt Romney stands at a disadvantage on this point.  Also, I’ve explained in two posts (here and here) why I disagree with the characterization of Mormonism as a “cult.”  But I’ve not yet addressed the third issue.  Should pastors endorse candidates?

Jeffress himself sought to thread the needle, as this video of his address to his congregation shows.  He would, he says, “never officially endorse anyone…from the pulpit of this church,” both because the IRS frowns upon it and because “this pulpit is too sacred” and “that’s not what the pulpit is about.”  At one point, Jeffress said, he did not believe that he would ever personally endorse a candidate either.  In the midst of a series of sermons called “Twilight’s Last Gleaming,” however, pastor Jeffress became convinced that we as individual Christians “have the responsibility to stand up, to push back against evil.”  So as “a private citizen and an American,” Jeffress decided that he should “use whatever influence I might have to try to elect a godly leader and place him in the White House.”  So he has personally endorsed Rick Perry, but will not officially endorse him from the pulpit — and people of all political persuasions, he said, should find a home at First Baptist, where the primary purpose is always to preach the Word and the gospel of Christ.

Now, before people get carried away, this is neither theocracy nor dominionism.  Jeffress is not saying that only Christians should have positions of authority, or that Christians are called to exercise dominion over all the levers of power.  Neither is he saying that the religious freedoms of non-Christians should be curtailed.  He’s merely saying that our culture and our community as a nation have so deteriorated that it’s especially urgent right now to elect a godly leader.  Since God blesses nations that honor him and honor his Word, “we must have godly leaders who embrace biblical principles.”

This is a live issue.  The federal government’s reckless mismanagement of the economy, and the continued deterioration of our collective moral culture, has inspired a new wave of conservative Christian political activism — especially noteworthy amongst pastors.  Take Iowa, for example.  According to pastor Jamie Johnson of Story City, Iowan pastors were roused from their apolitical slumbers by legislation and a Supreme Court decision that seemed to attack Christian values and freedom of religion.  Three Iowa Supreme Court justices who ruled with the majority were voted off the bench, and now pastors are “much more enthused than they were four years ago” to shape the election’s outcome.

Since some congregants prefer their pulpits without politics, says Kerry Jech of Marshalltown, Iowa, pastors like himself “take the fire” for their political activities. Yet the issues at stake in the 2012 election are so important, he says, that he only wishes more would join the cause, for failing to engage the political sphere in these circumstances is failing to defend the flock.

And the phenomenon is not limited to highly politicized states like Iowa. In a Los Angeles Times report on pastors “increasingly heeding a call to speak out on politics,” Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, describes the nascent national movement of pastors engaging the political sphere as a reawakening of the Religious Right in a more localized, grassroots form—”a congregational version of the tea party.”  Call it the Holy Water Party.  Pastors who once avoided his calls are now calling him and asking to get involved.

Whether this constitutes a healthy development in the life of the American church, or a distraction from its eternal purpose, is a matter of dispute even amongst Christian conservatives.  Controversial new books on the essential mission of the church and starkly different responses among evangelicals to religious-political events like Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally and Rick Perry’s “Response” suggest that pastors and religious leaders are finding it difficult to separate the right and wrong ways of bringing faith and politics together.

Seven out of 10 pastors, according to a 2010 LifeWay Research study, agree with pastor Jeffress that ministers should not endorse candidates from the pulpit.  It’s one thing to educate and mobilize a congregation around biblical principles of life, family, and fiscal stewardship, they say, but quite another to make the church an instrument of political operators.

Obviously evangelical pastors, as Johnson says, “see this as more than just another presidential election.”  We have not typically condemned African-American pastors who mobilize their churches on behalf of the candidates they believe will best serves the needs of their community.  Should we condemn white evangelical pastors who promote candidates who, they think, will best serve to restrengthen the moral and spiritual musculature of the nation?  Is this wrong, or manipulative, or a betrayal of the church’s fundamental mission?  What do you think?  When churches enter the political fray, do they compromise their witness and make the proper party affiliation a prerequisite for entering the kingdom?  On the other hand, in the midst of social disintegration and the erosion of Judeo-Christian values, can churches and their pastors afford to stand apart from the fray, or do their moral and theological commitments compel action?

It’s going to take time to answer these questions.  And the longstanding institution of the Democrat African-American Church, and of course the multitude of heavily-liberal-leaning Mainline churches, show that these are questions both for those on the Right and those on the Left.

My concern is twofold.  First, I do believe we desperately need leaders who honor the principles of honesty, humility, integrity, stewardship, individual initiative and collective responsibility for the present and future generations.  We stand in perilous times.  Yet I’m not sure we need to endorse specific candidates in order to achieve that end.  Second, our spiritual circumstances are far more important than our political circumstances, and I don’t want for conservative Christendom, or particular denominations, or even particular churches, to become colonies of one or another political party.  It becomes a barrier to believers or would-be believers who will not pass through the doors of those churches because they know their hothouses of conservative or liberal political activity.  It raises suspicion that we are more about access and influence than we are about confession and service.  It hobbles the church’s prophetic voice, should the church ever have to speak against the party or the politicians it supported.  And it ties the witness of the church to the performance of a particular party and its politicians.  If that party, or that candidate, proves hypocritical, then the churches that held him forth as a secular savior will find themselves wounded.

No person should be made to feel that she must accept Rick Perry in order to accept Christ.  And, as conservative as I am, I don’t want people to feel that they must share my political convictions in order to share the faith that God has given me in Christ.  A grassroots movement amongst conservative Christians — a Holy Water Party, if you will — could, could, be a deeply restorative thing.  But it must not confuse the Gospel of Christ with the gospel of the free market, and it must make perfectly certain that it retains the prophetic distance to critique and hold accountable leaders on both sides of the aisle.

Note: This post drew in small measure on a piece I wrote in World Magazine — and that piece, by the way, should (as I indicated to the editor) have credited Joel Hannahs for his reporting from Iowa.