Marvin Olasky on the 2000 GOP convention

(CNN) – A senior fellow at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, Dr. Marvin Olasky has often been called the godfather of "compassionate conservatism."

Dr. Olasky is the editor of World, a national weekly news magazine from a Christian perspective. He also writes a bi-weekly column for the Austin American Statesman and occasional columns for USA Today, the Wall Street Journal and Investor's Business Daily. He has written 13 books of history and cultural analysis, and was general editor of the Turning Point Christian Worldview series.

Chat Moderator: Welcome to the Allpolitics chat room, Marvin Olasky.

Marvin Olasky: Hello to the audience!

Chat Moderator: For those just joining us, what is compassionate conservatism?

Marvin Olasky: It's the alternative to the failed liberal welfare state. Instead of offering entitlement, it offers challenge; instead of providing bureaucracy, it emphasizes personal one-to-one help based on the literal definition of the word "compassion" -- with suffering, suffering with personal involvement. Compassionate conservatism, instead of attempting to banish God from the premises, emphasizes spiritual needs as well as physical ones.

Chat Moderator: George W. Bush says that he is a compassionate conservative. Would you agree?

Marvin Olasky: Yes. He does what Republican candidates in recent years have rarely done. He takes time away from campaigning in the vote-rich Republican suburbs in order to put a spotlight on the work of inner city groups. So, he uses the most valuable commodity for a candidate, time, to help individuals in need.

Question from Aware: Mr. Olasky, is conservative Christianity inclusive?

Marvin Olasky: Well, Christianity in its biblical definition states that a turn to Christ is essential for salvation, so it's not inclusive in the sense of saying that all spiritual roads are the same. But it is certainly inclusive in proclaiming that the Gospel is for everyone, for people of all races, nations and ethnic groups -- whatever part of humanity there is.

Question from Jeremiah: How does conservativism deal with the hunger of dependent children when you cut welfare?

Marvin Olasky: Welfare wasn't cut. There was a limit placed on its growth and, in particular, a limit placed on the number of years that an able-bodied, able-minded person could be on it. I've seen firsthand that the limitation on the number of years has made a very favorable impact in inner city areas because the welfare-to-work programs that, in the early '90s, were often a joke are now taken very seriously.

So, there are exceptions to the time limits for people in dire need who are unable to help themselves, but there's useful challenge for people who are. What's clear is that as long as children are part of the family, it's very difficult to help the children apart from helping the whole family, including often the single parent.

In-Depth Coverage of the Republican National Convention

So, it's vital to do all we can to increase the sense of responsibility among parents rather than the tendency to sit back that has been evident in some, clearly not all, but some parents.

Question from MKUltra: Mr. Olasky, why is it that the left gets upset when they believe that morals are being forced on them, but seem to forget this when they try to force their morals on us, i.e. universal healthcare, welfare, social security?

Marvin Olasky: That's a good point. What I argue for and what Governor Bush repeatedly emphasizes is the importance of a level playing field. There should be no favoritism for either right or left. The emphasis should be on helping to further the work of groups that are demonstrably successful in fighting alcoholism or drug addiction or crime, regardless of where they are coming from politically.

One problem right now is that we do have a bias in favor of secular approaches, many of which the left endorses, and a bias against religious programs. We should have equal rights for all.

Question from Deltre: How does "compassionate conservatism" differ from pre-Roosevelt Republicanism?

Marvin Olasky: Pre-Roosevelt Republicanism encompasses 70 years and it was different in different periods. If the question is narrowed down to the 1920s, the tendency then was to say, as Calvin Coolidge put it, that the business of America is business. That's partially true, but the business of America is also trying to do all we can to, as Governor Bush puts it, ensure that no child is left behind. The best way to do that is to remove barriers to the success of effective community groups, many of which are faith-based.

But let me emphasize one big change from the 1920s. At that time, there was a Christian consensus in America. That consensus no longer exists. We have pluralism, with many religions that did not have much of an impact in the 1920s now gaining great support.

That includes Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and several other religions, along with Judaism, which was important in the 1920s and is still very important. So, the emphasis now has to be on freeing people of all religions from government constraints.

I am a senior fellow of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty and I take those two words, religion and liberty, very seriously. My goal is to propose concepts that can work to the benefit of both religion and liberty, in a way that doesn't discriminate against secular alternatives or those who hold to them.

Question from Huntz: Mr. Olasky, the current administration has made a career out of doing things "for the children." They have done more "to the children" than "for." What will conservatism bring our youth that has not been introduced as of today?

Marvin Olasky: Right now, there is governmental discrimination against many of the groups that are most effective in helping children. By that I mean the Clinton administration, and Mr. Gore specifically, has said that religious groups that do not emphasize worship and evangelism can work alongside government in a variety of programs, but those that do are not allowed to participate.

A study released today by the Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society -- that's a center at the University of Pennsylvania -- shows that religious, low income, urban teenagers are much less likely to take illicit drugs than otherwise comparable teenagers living in the same high poverty neighborhoods. That study even showed that the degree to which religious involvement reduces a youth's probability of using illicit drugs increases the older a teenager becomes.

There's a lot more in that new study, but the emphasis on the importance of churches, synagogues and mosques is very important. These are typically groups in the inner city that take worship and teaching others about their beliefs very seriously and, if you discriminate against them, you are discriminating against what are often the most effective helpers of kids in inner city neighborhoods.

Chat Moderator: Are you concerned about blurring the lines between church and state?

Marvin Olasky: I certainly believe in the separation of church and state but I don't think that a wall of separation is either constitutionally indicated or useful in fighting poverty. The goal of the Founders, and I go into this in my book "Compassionate Conservatism" as well as in a book that I wrote about 18th century history, was to keep any particular denomination from becoming the alpha dog and lording it over the others. But they never wanted to place barriers in the way of religious groups. Their goal was freedom for religion, not freedom from religion, and I believe that should be ours as well.

Chat Moderator: Do you have any final thoughts for us?

Marvin Olasky: Goodnight. Thank you for your questions and I'd be glad to receive further inquiries.

Chat Moderator: Thank you for joining us today, Marvin Olasky.

Check out the CNN Chat calendar
Post your opinion on our Conventions message board

Marvin Olasky's Bio

World on the Web
Action Institute

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.