Ralph Reed's war on poverty: hope or hype?

Has Ralph Reed undergone a startling conversion on the road to Washington, D.C.?

To listen to the executive director of the Christian Coalition tell it, TV preacher Pat Robertson's political unit has turned over a new leaf. In the 105th Congress, Reed told a Washington press conference Jan. 30, the group will promote "a bold and compassionate agenda designed to combat poverty and restore hope."

Dubbed the "Samaritan Project," the eight-point agenda is rife with terms like "hope," "opportunity," "charity" and "justice." At the unveiling before the media, there was little talk about the Coalition's usual themes of bashing public education, banning abortion and demonizing gay people.

Reed even tried to put a bipartisan spin on his new agenda. "This is not a Republican or Democratic agenda, nor is it a conservative or liberal agenda," he said. "It is a compassionate, faith-based agenda to combat poverty and restore hope. We believe that government and the church can be partners in undertaking this great endeavor. We disagree with those liberals on the left who believe that government is always the answer, and we disagree with those libertarians on the right who believe that government is always the problem."

Despite Reed's enthusiasm, critics were quick to note that several items in Reed's "bold" and "new" agenda look strikingly familiar. Item two, "Hope and Opportunity Scholarships," is really a warmed-over religious school voucher plan, the same old attack on public education that the Christian Coalition has advocated from the day it was founded. The Coalition proposes "scholarships" for students in 100 of the most "impoverished, violent or drug-ridden school districts" and says the amount should be "adequate to enable a child to attend a local private school."

The "faith solutions" plank calls for pouring massive amounts of taxpayer funds into religious groups to combat social ills -- with virtually no government oversight to make sure the money isn't spent to preach sectarian views. The "strong families" plank demands that taxpayers pick up the tab for "abstinence-based" sex education programs in public schools, which are often thinly disguised sectarian dogma.

In the final analysis, critics were left to conclude, there was little new in the Coalition's "bold" plan. At a press conference held immediately after the Coalition's unveiling, Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn told the nation's media he remains skeptical of the group's self-professed change of heart.

"Frankly, the dream list just announced by the Christian Coalition for the 105th Congress is simply a cheap veneer over the same creaky agenda of intolerance, moral paternalism and government aid to religion that the Coalition failed to pass during the last Congress," Lynn charged.

Evidence from the Coalition itself seems to back up Lynn's assertion. The January/February issue of the Coalition's Christian American magazine contained an article titled "105th Congress: Unfinished Business" that listed the "pro-family" movement's top goals for 1997. Among them were restrictions on abortion, passage of a "Parental Rights Amendment," some type of "Religious Freedom Amendment" designed to weaken the constitutional separation of church and state and restrictions on gay rights. Not one word was mentioned about the "Samaritan Project" or helping the poor.

Asked about this discrepancy at the press conference, Reed replied that the magazine was printed before the project was finalized and that future editions would discuss the Samaritan effort.

What is the Christian Coalition really up to? Critics say the new project was cleverly designed to mask the organization's radical political agenda and win converts in minority communities that do not normally support conservative Republican candidates and causes.

The Coalition has persistently labored to win government support for sectarian ministries, including religious schools. By packaging ideas like vouchers as "scholarships" and aiming them at low-income communities, the Coalition hopes to make its anti-public education agenda seem kinder and gentler.

Requiring government to give churches money for the provision of social services is a parallel component of the same strategy. Religiously affiliated groups use government aid to help the disadvantaged now, but they must abide by various regulations to ensure that religion isn't advanced at public expense. Separately administered corporations are usually formed to handle taxpayer funds.

By wiping these safeguards off the books and claiming it is a more effective form of charity, the Coalition advances one of its major goals: government funding of religion.

The overture to the African-American and Hispanic communities may be the riskiest part of the strategy. Although Reed was flanked by a few black and Hispanic ministers at the press conference, the Coalition has made little headway into these communities. Robertson's political machine remains an overwhelmingly white organization based in Pentecostal, Baptist and other ardently fundamentalist churches.

The Coalition hopes to win minority support partly with outlays of cash. The group plans to provide "financial assistance" to 1,000 places of worship "that are reaching out to impoverished communities across the nation."

Ideally, once the contacts are made, the Coalition can begin drafting minorities into its political apparatus. Statistics from the last election show little move toward the GOP by blacks - only 5 percent of African-American voters cast ballots for Republican presidential candidate Robert Dole -- and CC operatives realize that cutting into this voting bloc is essential for GOP electoral success.

Public opinion polls show that many blacks are conservative on social issues such as abortion and homosexuality, and Christian Coalition strategists have looked for a way to lure African Americans into the GOP voting column. CC critics think the Samaritan Project is little more than the latest attempt to do that.

A handful of black clergy already work with the Coalition. The Rev. Earl Jackson serves as the group's liaison for community development. At the Jan. 30 press conference, Jackson charged that "big government and its attendant bureaucracy has not worked" and he called for strengthening the family and reliance on "faith-based" institutions.

(Jackson, a radio talk show host and pastor, is one of five conservative black leaders convening a Black Conservative Unity Summit in Washington, D.C., in May. The event will occur the same month as a Christian Coalition-sponsored Racial Reconciliation Congress in Baltimore.)

A second speaker at the Jan. 30 CC conference, the Rev. Lawrence Haygood of Tuskegee, Ala., stopped just short of proclaiming Reed the new Martin Luther King, Jr.

In remarks that must have embarrassed even Reed, Haygood said, "We in the black community have looked for a leader in a black form. But he did not show up in a black form. He has come in a white form, in the image of Ralph Reed."

However, leaders of major African-American religious and civil rights groups seem wary of the CC move. "I'm careful not to judge anyone's motives, but the Christian Coalition has been more interested in finding its place in the Republican Party than in the body of Christ," the Rev. Otis Moss Jr., a Cleveland minister who is civil rights chairman for the Progressive National Baptist Convention, told the Associated Press. "I believe in redemption. but I think we should wait and see exactly what the Christian Coalition brings to the table."

Harold McDougal, legislative director of the NAACP, also expressed skepticism, especially over the Coalition promise to be a missionary to inner-city black churches. "My main problem with that is that they view the African American community as a mission field, and we as a people have had mixed results with missions," McDougal said. "Missionaries don't always come to listen; they come to preach with an agenda."

The Coalition certainly has no track record of supporting civil rights. In fact, one of the group's congressional champions is Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), who based his 1990 campaign on thinly disguised race baiting. The Coalition worked hand in glove with the Helms campaign that year, and Reed later took the credit for the North Carolina Republican's narrow victory over former Charlotte Mayor Harvey Gantt, an African American.

The record of Coalition founder and president Robertson on race is just as dismal. Robertson supported the apartheid government in South Africa until the bitter end and served as one of the regime's primary U.S. apologists, once going so far as to appear on state-run television in Johannesburg to criticize American blacks who opposed white minority rule there. Robertson said blacks had "made this whole matter into an extension of the United States civil rights movement, and I think they don't understand what they're dealing with...."

As late as 1992, with the apartheid regime crumbling, Robertson groused that "one man, one vote" democracy would "not be wise" in South Africa because "there needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now...."

The TV preacher's views on poverty are likely to be about as controversial as his stand on race. Robertson, himself a multi-millionaire business executive, has said in his books that poverty can be the result of "satanic attack." He says people can get out of poverty and debt by religious actions such as memorizing scripture verses.

Robertson's record on race and poverty aside, the Christian Coalition's Samaritan Project dovetails nicely with the current GOP agenda in Congress. House Speaker Gingrich has increasingly touted churches and church schools as the best vehicles to solve problems in education, welfare and drug abuse. Republicans have given top priority to tax subsidies for religion during this congressional session.

A Christian Coalition-GOP partnership on "compassionate conservatism" could prove to be a public relations and political advance for both. The Coalition's success rate in the 104th Congress, despite much bragging by Reed, was dismal. The Coalition introduced a much-vaunted 10-point "Contract with the American Family" in May of 1995 with plenty of fanfare. The event was held at the U.S. Capitol, and House Speaker Newt Gingrich and other congressional Republicans appeared. (This year, Gingrich, suffering from the lowest public approval rating of any major Washington figure, was nowhere to be seen.)

Only two planks of the '95 Coalition wish list made it into law. One, censorship of the Internet, was later struck down by a federal court; the other, tax benefits for homemakers, was primarily the idea of Senate liberals. This year, Robertson and Reed want better results.

One of Robertson's top priorities is enactment of a so-called "Religious Freedom Amendment." In 1995, the measure, which would effectively repeal church-state separation, was described as "the crown jewel" of the Coalition's "Contract with the American Family." This time, in keeping with the emphasis on helping the poor, the church-state amendment was relegated to a back page of a Coalition briefing paper headed "Additional Items."

But critics of the group insist that destruction of the wall of separation between church and state remains a key goal of Robertson and the Coalition. On the day of Reed's Washington press conference, Robertson devoted much of his nationally broadcast "700 Club" program not to the Samaritan Project, but to attacks on church-state separation.

During the last Congress, the effort to pass a constitutional amendment was stymied in part because religious conservatives fought over language and two competing versions were introduced. That problem has apparently been resolved. Reed, appearing with Robertson on the "700 Club" Jan. 30, said this year there will be only one amendment.

"I'm pleased to be able to report today that we think we have resolved that difference," he said. "We now have one amendment that the entire pro-family movement will get behind. And Pat, as you know, in unity there is power. And we now have the entire religious conservative community united to stop having young people who love Christ being treated as second-class citizens."

Reed also made it clear that the Christian Coalition plans to use the congressional tally on the "Religious Freedom Amendment" as a litmus test for the group's voter's guides in 1998. The important thing, Reed said, is to get a recorded vote. His remarks prompted Robertson to add, "This should be a major issue in the 1998 elections. If people will not vote for this, they ought to be held accountable."

Republican congressional leaders have reportedly promised action on the amendment by early summer.

Some GOP activists are deeply concerned, however, about the Coalition's growing influence within the party. John A. Moran, former Republican Party finance chairman, recently charged that the GOP's future "is in jeopardy" because of the Coalition and other "far right" elements.

According to The Washington Post, Moran wrote letters to major Republican donors Feb. 10 urging them to support a new organization that can steer the party in a more moderate direction.

Moran expressed specific concerns about the recent election of Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson. He said Nicholson is a "very pleasant fellow" but he "will now be beholden to the far right for their support. Ralph Reed is actually taking credit for Jim's election." (Christian Coalition operatives on the RNC switched their votes to Nicholson, an anti-abortion Catholic, when CC favorite Tom Pauken of Texas dropped out of the race.)

In the final analysis, critics say, it's politics as usual at the Christian Coalition. Despite the heralded new emphasis on the poor, the organization appears to be up to the same old tricks: jockeying for power behind the scenes, staging votes in Congress it can use against its political opponents and feeding the American public one line while pursuing an entirely different course with its own members and in Washington.

Addressing the media during AU's press conference, Lynn denounced the Coalition's duplicity. "The Christian Coalition program for the poor is a house of cards," he said, "which when collapsed by the breeze leaves exposed a self-interested, extremist political organization. Many Americans hope, indeed many pray, that these ideas will join last session's wish list in the dust bin of congressional history."

PAT ROBERTSON AND AMERICANS UNITED: NASTY NAME-CALLING

Religious broadcaster and Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson thinks Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn is "an intolerant jerk."

The volatile televangelist's latest outburst occurred during the Jan. 30 edition of his nationally broadcast "700 Club." Lee Webb, the anchor of the show's pseudo-news program, noted that Lynn had criticized House Speaker Newt Gingrich for suggesting that government has a role to play in the spiritual life of the nation.

Robertson exploded, "Barry Lynn's an intolerant jerk! He's just trying to raise money. That's just the way it is."

The attack was the third on-air salvo Robertson has launched against the AU executive director in recent months, Previously, Robertson called Lynn "off the wall" when AU protested a military-sponsored Promise Keepers rally in Virginia. Lynn was dubbed "lower than a child molester" for reporting to the Internal Revenue Service illegal politicking by tax-exempt churches.

In his televised diatribes and fund-raising letters, Robertson frequently attacks organizations that incur his wrath -- such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood and the National Education Association. Increasingly he is adding Americans United to his list. Rarely, however, does Robertson single out the leaders of these groups for personal slurs -- but he seems to be making an exception in Lynn's case.

Lynn said Robertson's name-calling is evidence of Americans United's effectiveness in countering the Christian Coalition's extremist agenda. The AU executive director noted that when Ralph Reed came to Washington to announce the Coalition's "Samaritan Project" Jan. 30, AU scheduled a press briefing in the same hotel that started just minutes after the CC event ended.

The AU event, which countered the Coalition's claims, received coverage in The Washington Post, The New York Times and other major newspapers. Lynn's comments ran several times on CNN's television news shows, and the Americans United briefing was broadcast in its entirety on C-SPAN on several occasions.

"We are clearly getting under Robertson's skin," Lynn remarked. "That's what his name-calling is about. All I can say to Pat Robertson is this: Get used to us. We at Americans United intend to monitor the Christian Coalition and respond quickly to any attempts to mislead the American people."