New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | March 2, 2005

Kerry Howley examines the strings on foreign grants to combat AIDS and concludes that "compassionate conservatism" means using the façade of compassion to promote conservatism.

Comments

|3.2.05 @ 12:19PM|#

Whomever controls the purse strings controls the agenda behind the facade, whatever that agenda might be.

|3.2.05 @ 12:28PM|#

Which is fine for private donations.

But the rationale behind this seem to be to impose "Christian" standards on people who may not be christians, and use federal funds to do so.

|3.2.05 @ 12:40PM|#

Obviously these programs should all be private, yadda yadda yadda, but as long as they are public, would it be too much to ask that they at least focus on things that work, like needles and condoms?

Then again, that would make them the first gov't programs to use resources efficiently. Never mind.

|3.2.05 @ 12:57PM|#

"Would it be too much to ask that they at least focus on things that work, like needles and condoms?"

What? And promote drug use and premarital sex??? NEVER!

Besides, condoms don't work, it is a PROVEN scientific fact that the HIV virus is so small it will slip through the pourus latex that rubbers are made of.

I got that fact off of a Christian College web site. ;)

|3.2.05 @ 12:59PM|#

The yadda-yadda-yadda part is the crux of the matter thoreau. My comment simply reflected the fact that once these programs exist, it's a little suspect to complain about the agenda being foisted simply because one disagrees with the agenda. It's not ok to focus on things like needles and condoms if your taking money from people who don't want to contribute to them.

David - That's my point; whether the donations are private or forced, the princple is the same. Whomever controls the purse strings will impose their standards. You seem miffed that the values being imposed are christian, using tax-payers (many of the christian) funds... oops, I mean federal funds. Are you equally miffed at some other set of standards or values being imposed using taxpayer funds?

Short of it; If we as libertarians (I'm assuming here granted) only speak up when it's christian values being imposed (or dismiss the core of the issue with yadda yadda yadda), your accepting the premise and then just arguing about the price.

|3.2.05 @ 1:03PM|#

or dismiss the core of the issue with yadda yadda yadda

No, I mentioned the bisque.

|3.2.05 @ 1:13PM|#

I'm not miffed, just puzzled as usual. I used Christian in quotes because I don't feel these values are necessarily in keeping with Jesus message . I also don't think that the majority of Americans who are christian agree with a 700 club outlook on life.

I would actually prefer all donation to be private, because i don't think government programs ever work out that well.

|3.2.05 @ 1:31PM|#

Karl, I agree that the public funding is at the core of the issue. I agree that in an ideal world there would be no public funding for such things.

But federal spending on charitable goals isn't going to evaporate any time soon. Rather than just dismissing any and all waste as the inevitable imposition of values by the funders, we might as well ask if the money could at least be spent on something that is proven effective at achieving the program's goals (i.e. curbing the transmission of AIDS).

As an analogy, imagine that cities are given the same amount of money to run a clinic. One of them hires a doctor who has lost a lot of malpractice cases, and buys shoddy equipment at high prices because the contractor is friends with the city council. The other hires a decent doctor and buys better equipment at comparable prices thanks to competitive bidding.

Now, obviously, neither of those clinics should be getting taxpayer funds, but surely you would agree that one is a much worse use of tax dollars than the other.

|3.2.05 @ 2:00PM|#

I'd generally agree, thoreau - but of course, the second clinic gets to be the sole shining example that people hold up as justification for expanding the clinic program...

|3.2.05 @ 2:10PM|#

thoreau,

What would really work would be to build massive prisons all over sub-Saharan Africa, and place the entire population in solitary confinement. They would then be kept from having sex or sharing needles without first being tested for HIV. Problem solved.

What's that you say? The cure is worse than the disease (literally)? I suspect that's the way Bush and Souder feel about condom and needle distribution.

|3.2.05 @ 2:14PM|#

Which is why I agree that all aid should be private yadda yadda yadda. Rarely will aid be directed at "what works best," since different people have different beliefs about what means are acceptable to achieve their ends.

|3.2.05 @ 4:52PM|#

would it be too much to ask that they at least focus on things that work, like needles and condoms?

thoreau -

In countries where leaders say the disease doesn't exist at all, and if by some minor chance it does, it's all the US's fault, there are more pressing educational needs than needles or condoms.

|3.2.05 @ 5:57PM|#

So how's that Gates foundation working out in comparison to all this US government hoo-hah?

Instead of comparing the President's Special PEPFAR to a multinational boondoggle, I want to know: How's the private sector doing?

|3.2.05 @ 9:12PM|#

More than anything, this is crony payback for monetary contributions.

The Van Andel and DeVos families (of Amway fame) contributed heavily to Bush through various channels -- all of which were legal. Rich DeVos was the man who invented the phrase "compassionate conservative" in his 1994 book Compassionate Capitalism.

And Clinton booked overnight stays in the White House. All politicians like to pat their buddies on the back. I'm not sure what's to be done about it.

b-psycho|3.2.05 @ 11:19PM|#

"All politicians like to pat their buddies on the back. I'm not sure what's to be done about it."

I dunno, chop their hands off?

Joking, obviously...;^)

|3.3.05 @ 10:55AM|#

Oh, keep your pants on, already.