David Brooks of the NYT sees "A Natural Alliance"

After agonizing over why "we Jews don't have megagogues" and why his books "don't sell 25 million copies", he gets to the business at hand and observes that

culture wars and wars against poverty don't mix:

My third thought, which may be more profound than the other two, is that we can have a culture war in this country, or we can have a war on poverty, but we can't have both. That is to say, liberals and conservatives can go on bashing each other for being godless hedonists and primitive theocrats, or they can set those differences off to one side and work together to help the needy.

He then observes who may agree with him:

The natural alliance for antipoverty measures at home and abroad is between liberals and evangelical Christians. These are the only two groups that are really hyped up about these problems and willing to devote time and money to ameliorating them. If liberals and evangelicals don't get together on antipoverty measures, then there will be no majority for them and they won't get done.

He supports this claim with recent, joint work by seemingly bitter enemies, and includes an intriguing development in Evangelical/Catholic relations:

Today I'll be at a panel discussion on a proposed antipoverty bill called the Aspire Act, which is co-sponsored in the Senate by social conservatives like Rick Santorum and social liberals like Jon Corzine.

And when I look at the evangelical community, I see a community in the midst of a transformation - branching out beyond the traditional issues of abortion and gay marriage, and getting more involved in programs to help the needy. I see Rick Warren, who through his new Peace initiative is sending thousands of people to Rwanda and other African nations to fight poverty and disease. I see Chuck Colson deeply involved in Sudan. I see Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals drawing up a service agenda that goes way beyond the normal turf of Christian conservatives.

I see evangelicals who are more and more influenced by Catholic social teaching, with its emphasis on good works. I see the historical rift healing between those who emphasized personal and social morality.

I'm not certain when such an awareness of these developments first smacked him upside the head. Where has he been? Is he right? Is this such a new phenomena? Pat Robertson has been carrying out humanitarian work since 1978! This archived CT article discusses Jubilee 2000, which featured cooperation between Bono and the late Senator Jesse Helms. Habitat for Humanity, a Christian ministry, builds homes for the poor, and former President Jimmy Carter has made headlines hammering nails into new rooves with the ministry. While I'm glad that Evangelicals may be taking a closer look at Catholic Social Teaching, it's clear that Christians have done their part to serve the poor, even when that means teaming up with Liberals. It sounds to me like Mr. Brooks has made news by getting wet.

As to his earlier premise--that we can have a culture war or a war on poverty but not both--it fails on its face. Not only can both of these important reforms take place, they must take place. Part of bringing the Gospel to the culture is to stand firm for Life, freedom rooted in truth, the proper use of the gift of sex and support of families. Another vital part of Christian witness is to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless and meet the needs of the poor. Does Mr. Brooks believe that the poor will be served by a culture that considers human life definable by convenience and as conveniently set aside? Do not the winds of euthanasia that blow fiercely since Terry Schiavo not trouble him? The poor will be the last considered for aid--and possible the first considered for disposal--should our culture continue its march to our Brave New World. Only Christ saves. Only His Gospel preached through word, sacrament and example will bring others to Him. That means facing down the culture of death and the consumerism that victimizes the poor. There's no either/or here. If we fail to fight and win one war, we will lose them both.