"Who'll Keep the Faith-Based Initiative?"

Jim Towey, former head of the White House Office for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, asks that question about the two presidential candidates in today's Washington Post.  He begins by noting the opposition to the program:

Liberals who measure compassion only by tax dollars spent say it hasn't gone far enough, while zealots about church-state separation say that it goes too far and should be shut down. But this program is transforming lives. And in an election campaign lacking for new ideas, this one is worth saving.

As a defender (in scholarship and in litigation) of the faith-based initiative, I agree with Mr. Towey that it has opened the door for many private organizations doing good work with the needy to cooperate with government without having to give up their religious character.  (If it focuses on faith-based organizations, that's because they were discriminated against in the past and rules need to be adopted against such discrimination.)  But it's a bit irritating to see the paragraph above refer only to "liberals" and separationist "zealots" as dangers to the program.  In fact, we have considerable evidence that there were many opponents within the Bush administration itself -- those concerned above all with cutting social spending and, one may reasonably infer, interested in maintaining the program primarily for its political value -- and that they were successful in limiting its funding.  That evidence comes not only from the program's former deputy director David Kuo, but from its enthusiastic congressional supporters such as Rep. Mark Souder (Rick Santorum also fought for more funding).

In that light, it seems somewhat partisan to list as opponents of the plan only separationists along with certain "liberals" who want it to do more.  But it's good that Mr. Towey ultimately asks McCain as well as Obama whether they''ll really be committed to cooperating with private (including religious) organizations to reduce poverty, especially since McCain has put such an emphasis on restricting discretionary domestic spending.  It's just that he might also ask if either of them will put more resources into that cooperative effort.