What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
If you have a few moments, check out this interesting article by Clifford Orwin, a political theorist based in Canada who likes to study American political ideas. The idea he writes about in that essay is compassionate conservatism. At a time when many of our conservative leaders are emphasizing fiscal prudence and even austerity, the idea of "compassionate conservatism" seems like a quaint relic from a previous time. But as an idea, does it have any merit?
First, Orwin reminds of compassionate conservatism's most recent incarnation:
[George W.] Bush’s promotion of compassionate conservatism may have struck you as incongruous. If so, you weren’t the only one. Everyone knows that not conservatives but liberals are the party of compassion, and have been at least since the New Deal. For conservatives to play the compassion card – wasn’t that mere capitulation to liberals?...
Bush offered not just generalities but a substantial Federal financial commitment. He promised a Compassion Capital Fund. The fund would assist small grass roots agencies, many but not all of them faith-based, few of which had previously qualified for federal support.
Then, the author traces the history of compassionate conservatism from its origins in 1981, right through Jack Kemp, Ronald Reagan, Bush the elder, and then George W. Bush.
Jack Kemp, not a liberal Republican but one who preached helping the poor by fostering a rising economic tide for all, called himself a "bleeding heart conservative." Mercifully, this term found no further takers.
President Reagan himself encouraged this new drift of the Republican Party softward but not leftward. Succeeding the cold, hectoring Jimmy Carter, Reagan was the warmest president since FDR—as well as the first Republican who dared don his mantle. All democratic politicians profess concern for the common man, but neither Eisenhower nor Nixon had succeeded in conveying much sympathy for him. Reagan did, and Democrats seethed helplessly as his invincible amiability blunted opposition to his policies.
What then of Reagan’s heir apparent, George H.W. Bush? A patrician, he was uneasy with the increasingly populist tone of American politics. Was it to offset his lack of Reagan’s personal warmth that he waged his first campaign on the slogan "a kinder, gentler society"?
Ultimately, according to Orwin, compassionate conservatism, as a policy, failed. But how does it fare as an idea? Is compassionate conservatism an oxymoron? Does it have a place in the conservative movement? Is it a viable philosophy? Are fiscal conservatism and compassionate conservatism necessarily at odds? What do you think?
- Comment (43)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
First, Cliff Orwin -- though he may live in Canada -- is an American citizen. One of his sons is a West Point graduate and, if I remember correctly, has been deployed in Afghanistan.
Second, the problem with compassion is that it is unreasoning. It is, as its etymology suggests, a passion. We imagine ourselves in the position of someone who is suffering, and, as Bill Clinton used to put it, we "feel" their pain. It leads to knee-jerk responses that often make things worse by encouraging the conduct that brought on the pain. Compassion is an ugly substitute for thinking about the common good and how best to achieve it.
We used to live in a country in which immigrants prided themselves on their accomplishments and on the achievements of those with a common background. We now live in a country in which immigrants, minority groups, and many members of one of the two sexes present themselves as victims rather than as agents intent on taking responsibility for their own welfare. For this you can blame compassion.
Feb '11
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
It seems to me that compassion by a conservative person is a fine thing. But it isn't the way to run a government.
Sep '10
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
Paul,
Wasn't Clifford Orwin a Straussian influenced (cue the organ music, dimming of lights, 3 witches of MacBeth) Thucydides scholar originally? I'm going strictly from memory. I remember the story of Thomas Pangle leaving the University of Toronto because of the forced retirement age.
Feb '10
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
What's more compassionate-- to say "I feel your pain-- here's a handout" or to say, "Want to work? Here's a job!"
Conservatives should be compassionate-- that should go without saying. But the compassion should be complemented by an understanding of reality and of human nature.
Our drive should be to make sure that no barriers are placed in the way of anyone who wants to work hard and make an honest living.
Nov '10
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
Long term government run compassion (using the term loosely) is always doomed to failure. The obvious effect is that it simply provides another niche for bureaucrats and government dependent organizations who then in turn eventually focus on their own survival, rather than their task. There is no natural check on these, as there is for true charities (once they start failing, people stop giving them money). Nor is it capable of focusing its efforts where they are really needed, and where those efforts can best be used.
But more importantly - compasssion-via-government lifts the burden of compassion from the individual. It's much easier to say "The government can handle this" than "This is something I have to do myself, for others." Similarly, benefitting from one's immediate community in times of need provides a much larger incentive to do better than help from the government does.
Finally, the voluntary association to do good used to be one of the major threads holding societies like Canada and the US together; take that away, don't be surprised when the rest of the fabric unravels..
May '10
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
It sucks.
Maybe.
Unfortunately.
No.
Yup.
I said it sucks.
Edited on Mar 3, 2011 at 6:53amMay '10
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
I recommend C. Bradley Thompson's individualist critique of compassionate conservatism and neoconservatism entitled The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism.
May '10
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
Compassion as government policy is for those unable to feel it on a personal level. Look at charitable giving among conservatives vs liberals. The conservative feels the personal call, the liberal feels if he votes Democratic and advocates enforced compassion from all he has done his duty. That's why liberals are more comfortable worshiping the tax code than God.
Jun '10
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
Compassion, to a conservative, to me, is providing American citizens (and legal residents) a level playing field--equality of opportunity. That, just that, is something plenty difficult and plenty rare. It means rooting out government corruption and favoritism--the kind that paralyzes the economies of dozens of nations, if not most nations on Earth. That's something much harder, and more compassionate, than just remedying old government corruption with new government corruption.
Oct '10
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
"Compassionate conservatism" isn't an oxymoron. It's a redundancy! Conservative principles and beliefs, when implemented properly and fully, are the embodiment of compassion.
What's "compassionate" about perpetuating a culture of dependency? What's "compassionate" about telling people they're not capable of caring for themselves, and then creating an environment in which it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy?? That's Liberalism.
Compassion is NOT the giving a handout to someone while keeping him under your heel. Compassion is telling that person, get off your arse and do something with yourself, and providing a support structure when necessary for that person to become self-sufficient.
I am so frickin' tired of hearing the term "compassionate conservatism" because it implies we conservatives have something to apologize for (our conservatism) and that being compassionate is the yang to our conservative yin.
NO. Conservatism has no yin and yang. Screw the "compassionate" language. When we define and describe the ends that conservative principles yield, then the compassion becomes clear.
Signs used to say "Honest Jack's Used Cars." They don't anymore, for a reason. Using the term "compassionate conservatism" just reinforces the perception that conservatism isn't compassionate. Which is BS.
Edited on Mar 3, 2011 at 7:16amRe: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
Pseudodionysius: Paul,
Wasn't Clifford Orwin a Straussian influenced (cue the organ music, dimming of lights, 3 witches of MacBeth) Thucydides scholar originally? I'm going strictly from memory. I remember the story of Thomas Pangle leaving the University of Toronto because of the forced retirement age. · Mar 3 at 6:32am
Yes, Cliff's book on Thucydides is fabulous.
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
Oh my goodness, you are absolutely correct. I can't believe that slipped my mind. I corrected the post accordingly. Thanks Paul : )
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
Would measures like school vouchers and health care vouchers count as instances of "compassionate conservatism"--measures that employ conservative principles to address poverty, education disparities, and so forth?
May '10
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
"We're a different kind of conservative. We're compassionate."
-So you're calling me not compassionate. I'm opposed to it. Actually I find it insulting.
May '10
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
Busy System Admin:
Conservatives should be compassionate-- that should go without saying. But the compassion should be complemented by an understanding of reality and of human nature.
dittoheadadt: "Compassionate conservatism" isn't an oxymoron. It's a redundancy! Conservative principles and beliefs, when implemented properly and fully, are the embodiment of compassion. ....
Signs used to say "Honest Jack's Used Cars." They don't anymore, for a reason. Using the term "compassionate conservatism" just reinforces the perception that conservatism isn't compassionate.
Agreed.
The problem is when we equate social action with government action, or when we give the federal government authority over local matters. We can compassionately help our fellow human beings in countless ways without using federal power.
Reagan's example is important. Voters respond to politicians who appear caring and trustworthy, regardless of their policies. Demeanor makes a difference in elections. A leader doesn't have to smile or tell us jokes, but he does have to assure us that he's focused on our interests (as we, the voters, define them) and considerate of our circumstances. Presentation matters; not just policy.
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
Getting down to brass tacks, "compassionate conservatism" strikes me as nothing more than a fig leaf for Republicans who want to endorse government spending (medicare prescription benefit, no-child-left-behind...). It's just pork barrel politics.
I've always been offended by the suggestion that traditional conservatives lack compassion (to build on Robert's comment above). There's nothing compassionate about liberal policies that have kept the poor on the dole and encouraged them to destroy their unborn children. A focus on limited government, individual liberty, and respect for life is as compassionate as it gets.
May '10
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
According to C. Bradley Thompson,
"The guiding moral principle of compassionate conservatism is the idea that we, by way of our government, have a “duty” to serve the needs of the poor, the homeless, the sick, and the aged—hence “compassionate,” which means desiring to relieve the pain and suffering of others. Its advocates seek to uphold this moral principle through “free-market mechanisms”—hence “conservatism.”"
Jul '10
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
I recognized "compassionate conservatism" for what it was - a poll-driven, focus-group-tested political slogan.
Bush's advisers knew that on top of the usual challenge a Republican has with touchy-feely voters, he brought with him the baggage of being from Texas - and having a penchant for executing people. They needed to soften the edges, while still pandering to the conservative base.
Cynical? Yeah. But not cynical enough; Bush himself bought into the concept. And nothing says compassion like throwing lots of other people's money around.
Edited on Mar 3, 2011 at 9:05amNov '10
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
“Compassionate conservatism” is a dumb idea that some Republicans dreamed up in response to the left’s charge that Republicans are mean spirited. It makes them sound like whiners. It plays right into the narrative the left wants to advance and is heard by some as a confession to the left’s charges. It’s never worked and never will. Successful Republicans like Ronald Reagan know that the only way to answer left-wing slander is to man up, fight back and show what mean bastards they are. The latter is easy, since it’s on display 24/7. All that’s needed are Republicans with the guts to point it out with the abundant examples provided daily.
Compassionate conservatism has no place in a conservative movement, it’s idiotic as a philosophy, and it’s a bad idea.
Conservatives need to realize that there’s no such thing as defense in politics. There’s just offense and losing. Why is it only Democrats understand this?
Edited on Mar 3, 2011 at 9:40amNov '10
Re: What Do We Think About Compassionate Conservatism?
TeeJaw: Why is it only Democrats understand this? · Mar 3 at 9:38am
Edited on Mar 03 at 09:40 am
Could it be that Democrats have stronger convictions than Republicans? Democrats actually believe in themselves, whilst Republicans are not sure of themselves, what they believe, what the stand for? Imagine a football team that wasn’t sure whether they wanted to win or not. They would not only lose the game, they’d have no fans. Everyone would hate them. And then if they tried to defend themselves by claiming to be compassionate football players, we’d want to kill them.