Compassion in Deed

 

There are those who mouth pieties about compassion. Former president George W. Bush comes to mind, perhaps because he made such a point, with his father, of distinguishing himself from that mean man (according to all the best sort of people) Ronald Reagan. Bush 41 touted “a thousand points of light,” and backhanded Reagan with his inauguration address. Bush 43 proclaimed himself a “compassionate conservative.”

“I call my philosophy and approach compassionate conservatism. It is compassionate to actively help our fellow citizens in need. It is conservative to insist on responsibility and results. And with this hopeful approach, we will make a real difference in people’s lives.”

Grant Bush 43 this: he effectively used U.S. taxpayer dollars to make a real difference in the public health of Africa. He seriously addressed HIV infection rates there. Of course, he did less than nothing for Christians in the Middle East, bringing catastrophe upon them while mouthing pieties. And he subverted any real move to secure our southern border, while sending our military everywhere else and working with Congress to exponentially grow the surveillance state. Whatever it took to keep the lid on American workers’ wages, in service of the Chamber of Commerce.

Real compassion is not found in phrases, or postures, but in deeds, as James wrote about faith:

But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

(James 2:18, English Standard Version)

Here is what real compassion for Americans looks like:

It was not a Bush, nor a Clinton, nor “the one we’ve been waiting for,” who actually took the political risk to truly, decisively act. This action is another thread in the fabric of promises kept to remember those Americans who were forgotten by the powers that be, by the bipartisan political machine. If we actually seek to enforce immigration law, and if we really expand domestic employment opportunities, then we will need to bring back in people we used to exclude. We will need to give a second chance for employment to people who we first held accountable for crimes.

Published in Domestic Policy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 40 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Franco Member

    And remarkably under-reported. Buried even.

    • #1
    • June 14, 2019, at 7:13 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  2. Arahant Member

    Started watching it. Saw it was 34 minutes. Figured I would just watch a smidgen. 34 minutes later…

    I really love watching Trump. Also, the gentleman behind him who started an IT company, as I understood it, seems to have a lot of personal charisma.

    • #2
    • June 14, 2019, at 7:23 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  3. MarciN Member

    I admire Trump so much for doing this. Thank you for posting this news.

    • #3
    • June 14, 2019, at 8:08 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  4. Annefy Member

    Awesome. Thank you. As I said on Facebook … that awkward moment when you’re applauding Kim Kardascian.

    america’s Greatest resource has always been its people 

    • #4
    • June 14, 2019, at 8:16 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  5. The Reticulator Member

    Still waiting for someone to identify himself as a compassionate progressive.

    • #5
    • June 14, 2019, at 8:18 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  6. EtCarter Listener

    Franco (View Comment):

    And remarkably under-reported. Buried even.

    Perhaps, we can all use the 24hour news tip numbers on the major western news stations?

    • #6
    • June 14, 2019, at 8:21 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  7. Stad Thatcher

    I hated it when W used the term “compassionate conservatism”, because it implied conservatism itself wasn’t compassionate.

    • #7
    • June 15, 2019, at 6:03 AM PDT
    • 10 likes
  8. The Reticulator Member

    Stad (View Comment):

    I hated it when W used the term “compassionate conservatism”, because it implied conservatism itself wasn’t compassionate.

    Exactly. If the guy had an ounce of political awareness, he’d have challenged his opponent to be more compassionate.

    • #8
    • June 15, 2019, at 6:16 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  9. Kevin Schulte Member

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    I hated it when W used the term “compassionate conservatism”, because it implied conservatism itself wasn’t compassionate.

    Exactly. If the guy had an ounce of political awareness, he’d have challenged his opponent to be more compassionate.

    That “compassionate” modifier was code for his internationalist big gov mega doner buddies. “I am not really one of them, I am really a neocon.” 

    Shhhhhh, don’t tell the rube’s. 

    In the defense of those who knew better. The alternative was Kerry and Gore. 

    • #9
    • June 15, 2019, at 6:25 AM PDT
    • 11 likes
  10. Jon1979 Lincoln

    Bush 43’s communication skills were at the opposite end of Trump’s, in terms of being able to work on the fly, and then being able to fight back against any effort to twist those words into something that the media wanted to claim Bush had said. And that dated from his run against Ann Richards in 1994 for governor, and the lessons he learned from his dad’s 1992 campaign, and particularly from things like the supermarket scanner allegations Andrew Rosenthal over at the Times fabricated, which then went pre-internet viral.

    Bush ran and won in ’94 by focusing on only 3-4 issues and then repeating certain key lines and words over and over again, to the point the state media got bored covering him, because they heard it all before (but the people in the different locations around the state were hearing for the first time). That’s the style he took to his national campaigns, which meant repetition of a few key buzzwords and lines over and over again, so they would get through whatever effort the media threw up to attack him. Worked in the 2000 and ’04 campaigns, but when the Iraq War dragged on, Bush didn’t have the verbal skills to defend himself, and didn’t change course until after the ’06 midterm debacle.

    Trump’s sparred with the media since 1977, and his combative style means he both knows how to defend himself, and knows how to force the media to cover things he does, even when they don’t want to do it, as with the prison reform effort. The Beltway media made a major effort to bury the story because it went against the narrative, but he got the celebrity media to cover it because of Kim Kardashian, and lots of people who don’t follow politics do follow that.

    • #10
    • June 15, 2019, at 6:44 AM PDT
    • 12 likes
  11. Franco Member

    And basically what’s happening now is the media has converted and convinced everyone they possibly can. The only thing they can do is keep them on board and agitated. 

    At this point the conversion can only go in one direction, against the media and therefore towards Trump. It may not be a lot of people, but they keep coming in a steady flow. And once they discover the scope of all their knowingly false narratives and claims, there’s no going back. Once you see it, it’s everywhere. The fake media are destroying themselves.

    • #11
    • June 15, 2019, at 9:18 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  12. Richard Finlay Member

    Insert obligatory reference to opposing Trump in the primaries to lend a patina of credibility to the following:

    I see Trump as actually caring more about the topics he campaigned on than about a political career. Unusual in a president. Polk and Coolidge come to mind. Any others?

    • #12
    • June 15, 2019, at 10:15 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  13. philo Member

    Richard Finlay (View Comment):

    Insert obligatory reference to opposing Trump in the primaries to lend a patina of credibility to the following:

    I see Trump as actually caring more about the topics he campaigned on than about a political career. Unusual in a president. Polk and Coolidge come to mind. Any others?

    Hmmm. I’ll have to think about that one for a while.

    • #13
    • June 15, 2019, at 10:39 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  14. Saint Augustine Member

    philo (View Comment):

    Richard Finlay (View Comment):

    Insert obligatory reference to opposing Trump in the primaries to lend a patina of credibility to the following:

    I see Trump as actually caring more about the topics he campaigned on than about a political career. Unusual in a president. Polk and Coolidge come to mind. Any others?

    Hmmm. I’ll have to think about that one for a while.

    The irony is that it’s not a bad career plan for a politician.

    • #14
    • June 15, 2019, at 1:08 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  15. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown Post author

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Richard Finlay (View Comment):

    Insert obligatory reference to opposing Trump in the primaries to lend a patina of credibility to the following:

    I see Trump as actually caring more about the topics he campaigned on than about a political career. Unusual in a president. Polk and Coolidge come to mind. Any others?

    Hmmm. I’ll have to think about that one for a while.

    The irony is that it’s not a bad career plan for a politician.

    Doing well by doing good?

    Keeping your seat by keeping your word?

    How revolutionary, how transformational!

    • #15
    • June 15, 2019, at 1:20 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  16. Skyler Coolidge

    I am in the uncomfortable position of wanting to defend the younger Bush. I never liked the socialist Bush family and credit them for doing much to ruin the Reagan revolution, but you go too far in accusing him of bringing ruin to Christians in Muslim nations. 

    The people who do harm to those Christians —and Jews— are the fanatical Muslims. All of the blame goes to those actors alone. W may have been a socialist, he may have a really bad understanding of how to win wars, but he did nothing to hurt those populations.

    • #16
    • June 15, 2019, at 3:16 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  17. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown Post author

    Skyler (View Comment):

    I am in the uncomfortable position of wanting to defend the younger Bush. I never liked the socialist Bush family and credit them for doing much to ruin the Reagan revolution, but you go too far in accusing him of bringing ruin to Christians in Muslim nations.

    The people who do harm to those Christians —and Jews— are the fanatical Muslims. All of the blame goes to those actors alone. W may have been a socialist, he may have a really bad understanding of how to win wars, but he did nothing to hurt those populations.

    Yes. And.

    He removed the imperfect governments that provided limited protection to Christian communities. He broke it, he bought it.

    • #17
    • June 15, 2019, at 3:21 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  18. Richard Finlay Member

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    He removed the imperfect governments that provided limited …. He broke it, he bought it.

    This is almost modern American foreign policy. See also: Korea, Viet Nam, Libya. We go to war for high-minded reasons then abandon them to demonstrate our impatience with their imperfections.

    • #18
    • June 15, 2019, at 4:44 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  19. Skyler Coolidge

    Richard Finlay (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    He removed the imperfect governments that provided limited …. He broke it, he bought it.

    This is almost modern American foreign policy. See also: Korea, Viet Nam, Libya. We go to war for high-minded reasons then abandon them to demonstrate our impatience with their imperfections.

    Bull. They are responsible. We gave them a chance to do right. That was their choice. 

    • #19
    • June 15, 2019, at 5:35 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  20. Richard Finlay Member

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Richard Finlay (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    He removed the imperfect governments that provided limited …. He broke it, he bought it.

    This is almost modern American foreign policy. See also: Korea, Viet Nam, Libya. We go to war for high-minded reasons then abandon them to demonstrate our impatience with their imperfections.

    Bull. They are responsible. We gave them a chance to do right. That was their choice.

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Richard Finlay (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    He removed the imperfect governments that provided limited …. He broke it, he bought it.

    This is almost modern American foreign policy. See also: Korea, Viet Nam, Libya. We go to war for high-minded reasons then abandon them to demonstrate our impatience with their imperfections.

    Bull. They are responsible. We gave them a chance to do right. That was their choice.

    The only nations we “gave a chance to do right” were Japan and Germany. Others were left on there own without the societal underpinnings that make it possible. Intervention without proper followup is setting them up for backlash. Iraq is another nation where ‘our’ foreign policy after the second intervention arguably did more damage than good. It is very comfortable to blame them for failure to evolve a system in a few years that took the US much, much longer.

    The US is not a good imperialist nation. We don’t stick around. Should we be? Good question. But if we aren’t going to stay for the aftermath, we should pick a winner from the available contenders at the start or not intervene at all.

    Ngo dinh Diem could not be reached for comment.

    • #20
    • June 15, 2019, at 5:55 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  21. Stina Member

    I swear I must be related to this guy. I can’t watch him without seeing my dad in his facial expressions. It’s insane. Both Staten Island guys, too.

    • #21
    • June 15, 2019, at 6:04 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  22. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown Post author

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Richard Finlay (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    He removed the imperfect governments that provided limited …. He broke it, he bought it.

    This is almost modern American foreign policy. See also: Korea, Viet Nam, Libya. We go to war for high-minded reasons then abandon them to demonstrate our impatience with their imperfections.

    Bull. They are responsible. We gave them a chance to do right. That was their choice.

    I get what you are saying, have certainly felt that way from time to time, but disagree.

    • #22
    • June 15, 2019, at 6:30 PM PDT
    • Like
  23. Skyler Coolidge

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Bull. They are responsible. We gave them a chance to do right. That was their choice.

    I get what you are saying, have certainly felt that way from time to time, but disagree.

    I put it in the category of leading a horse to water.

    • #23
    • June 15, 2019, at 7:13 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  24. Saint Augustine Member

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Bull. They are responsible. We gave them a chance to do right. That was their choice.

    I get what you are saying, have certainly felt that way from time to time, but disagree.

    I put it in the category of leading a horse to water.

    Image result for dogbert lead a horse to water

    Please don’t try to interpret this according to the context.

    I just like referencing Dilbert.

    • #24
    • June 15, 2019, at 7:41 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  25. Instugator Thatcher

    Richard Finlay (View Comment):
    The only nations we “gave a chance to do right” were Japan and Germany.

    Hey, there is this thing called the internet and it has the sum of all human knowledge. Libya and Iraq and some places in Syria could do a little research to better govern themselves. 

    They could google Adam Smith and learn a nugget like this.

    “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.” – Adam Smith

    When combined with 

    “When in the course of human events…”

    Followed up with, “We the People…” (but without the expanded commerce clause)

    Leads to simple succinct self governance.

    Too bad tribal loyalty gets in the way.

     

    • #25
    • June 16, 2019, at 1:11 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  26. Richard Finlay Member

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Richard Finlay (View Comment):
    The only nations we “gave a chance to do right” were Japan and Germany.

    Hey, there is this thing called the internet and it has the sum of all human knowledge. Libya and Iraq and some places in Syria could do a little research to better govern themselves.

    They could google Adam Smith and learn a nugget like this.

    “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.” – Adam Smith

    When combined with

    “When in the course of human events…”

    Followed up with, “We the People…” (but without the expanded commerce clause)

    Leads to simple succinct self governance.

    Too bad tribal loyalty gets in the way.

     

    India adopted a lot of British customs, common law, administrative procedure … It took generations of being “involuntarily reorganized.” I am of the opinion that it takes about 2 generations to change tribal culture; the older members need to die off or lose influence. It is not something that is google-able. How long did it take for the ideas of Smith, et. al., to be adopted by anyone? 

    I accept that changing culture can only be done by the members of that culture; it is just that it can only be done as a gradual process. Even in a “culture” as small as a corporation, relatively small changes take much, much longer than seeing it on google. There is a reason most American manufacturing never successfully replicated Japanese KanBan. Of course, they tried to do it as a project lasting at most a few years. It took Toyota much longer to do it themselves.

    And you think a nation should be able to reinvent itself in a matter of, what, years? Culture isn’t rational; it will not change as a result of rational argument.

    Knowing that it doesn’t work like that, it is irresponsible to defeat another nation without a ‘re-education’ plan, involving a long post-war effort. This does not mean that punitive raids are disallowed, but the raid should have limited objectives designed to effect a change in the targeted nation’s behavior. Reagan’s punitive raid on Libya was effective. Obama’s decapitation of Libya is still a disaster.

    • #26
    • June 16, 2019, at 5:06 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  27. Skyler Coolidge

    Richard Finlay (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Richard Finlay (View Comment):
    The only nations we “gave a chance to do right” were Japan and Germany.

    Hey, there is this thing called the internet and it has the sum of all human knowledge. Libya and Iraq and some places in Syria could do a little research to better govern themselves.

    They could google Adam Smith and learn a nugget like this.

    “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.” – Adam Smith

    When combined with

    “When in the course of human events…”

    Followed up with, “We the People…” (but without the expanded commerce clause)

    Leads to simple succinct self governance.

    Too bad tribal loyalty gets in the way.

     

    India adopted a lot of British customs, common law, administrative procedure … It took generations of being “involuntarily reorganized.” I am of the opinion that it takes about 2 generations to change tribal culture; the older members need to die off or lose influence. It is not something that is google-able. How long did it take for the ideas of Smith, et. al., to be adopted by anyone?

    I accept that changing culture can only be done by the members of that culture; it is just that it can only be done as a gradual process. Even in a “culture” as small as a corporation, relatively small changes take much, much longer than seeing it on google. There is a reason most American manufacturing never successfully replicated Japanese KanBan. Of course, they tried to do it as a project lasting at most a few years. It took Toyota much longer to do it themselves.

    And you think a nation should be able to reinvent itself in a matter of, what, years? Culture isn’t rational; it will not change as a result of rational argument.

    Knowing that it doesn’t work like that, it is irresponsible to defeat another nation without a ‘re-education’ plan, involving a long post-war effort. This does not mean that punitive raids are disallowed, but the raid should have limited objectives designed to effect a change in the targeted nation’s behavior. Reagan’s punitive raid on Libya was effective. Obama’s decapitation of Libya is still a disaster.

    If Kan Ban worked better, we’d do it.

    If people are punished enough, they change their culture. The Comanches don’t rape and murder any more, and it’s not because they saw the light of goodness. It’s because we killed them if they didn’t stop. Change is best when self directed, but it needn’t only be that way.

    • #27
    • June 16, 2019, at 5:17 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  28. Richard Finlay Member

    Skyler (View Comment):
    t’s because we killed them if they didn’t stop.

    I agree. And Japan and Germany did not become somewhat democratic out of self-realization. They were conquered and rebuilt.

    • #28
    • June 16, 2019, at 8:09 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  29. The Reticulator Member

    Richard Finlay (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):
    t’s because we killed them if they didn’t stop.

    I agree. And Japan and Germany did not become somewhat democratic out of self-realization. They were conquered and rebuilt.

    That’s nor the way I’ve read the history. The New Dealers would have liked to rebuild them from scratch, along socialist lines, but realities intervened and we had to let them rebuild using existing structures, in part because of the Soviet threat. 

    • #29
    • June 17, 2019, at 4:10 AM PDT
    • Like
  30. Richard Finlay Member

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Richard Finlay (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment)
    t’s because we killed them if they didn’t stop.

    I agree. And Japan and Germany did not become somewhat democratic out of self-realization. They were conquered and rebuilt.

    That’s nor the way I’ve read the history. The New Dealers would have liked to rebuild them from scratch, along socialist lines, but realities intervened and we had to let them rebuild using existing structures, in part because of the Soviet threat.

    Konrad Adenauer certainly was key in resisting the Socialist preferences of our Diplomatic Corps, but could not have accomplished what he did without the occupation army. MacArthur basically dictated the Japanese constitution.

    • #30
    • June 17, 2019, at 8:15 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  1. 1
  2. 2