Posted on 11/16/2012 6:47:24 AM PST by Kaslin
William F. Buckley once noted that he was 19 when the Cold War began at the Yalta conference. The year the Berlin Wall came down, he became a senior citizen. In other words, he explained, anti-Communism was a defining feature of conservatism his entire adult life. Domestically, meanwhile, the right was largely a "leave me alone coalition": Religious and traditional conservatives, overtaxed businessmen, Western libertarians, and others fed up with government social engineering and economic folly. The foreign policy battle against tyrannical statism abroad only buttressed the domestic antagonism toward well-intentioned and occasionally democratic statism at home.
The end of the Cold War gave way to what Charles Krauthammer dubbed the "holiday from history" of the 1990s and the "war on terror" in the 2000s. People forget that Bush was elected during the former and had the latter thrust upon him. But at the end of the 1990s, he was one of many voices on the right trying to craft a political rationale to deal with the changing electoral and demographic landscape. He campaigned on a "humble foreign policy" in 2000 and promised something very, very different than a "leave me alone" domestic policy.
He called his new approach to domestic policy "compassionate conservatism."
For years, I've criticized "compassionate conservatism" as an insult to traditional conservatism and an affront to all things libertarian.
Bush liked to say that he was a "different kind of Republican," that he was a "compassionate conservative."
I hated -- and still hate -- that formulation. Imagine if someone said, "I'm a different kind of Catholic (or Jew, or American, etc.): I'm a compassionate Catholic." The insinuation was -- by my lights, at least -- that conservatives who disagreed with him and his "strong-government conservatism" were somehow lacking in compassion.
As a candidate, Bush distanced himself from the Gingrich "revolutionaries" of the 1994 Congress, and he criticized social conservatives like Robert Bork for his admittedly uncheery book, "Slouching Towards Gomorrah." He talked endlessly about how tough a job single mothers have and scolded his fellow conservatives for failing to see that "family values don't end at the Rio Grande." As president, he said that "when somebody hurts, government has got to move." According to compassionate conservatives, reflexive anti-statism on the right is foolish, for there are many important -- and conservative -- things the state can do right.
Compassionate conservatism always struck me as a philosophical surrender to liberal assumptions about the role of the government in our lives. A hallmark of Great Society liberalism is the idea that an individual's worth as a human being is correlated to his support for massive expansions of the entitlement state. Conservatives are not uncompassionate. (Indeed, the data show that conservatives are more charitable with their own money and more generous with their time than liberals). But, barring something like a natural disaster, they believe that government is not the best and certainly not the first resort for acting on one's compassion.
I still believe all of that, probably even more than I did when Bush was in office.
But, as a political matter, it has become clear that he was on to something important.
Neither critics nor supporters of compassionate conservatism could come to a consensus over the question of whether it was a mushy-gushy marketing slogan (a Republican version of Bill Clinton's feel-your-pain liberalism) or a serious philosophical argument for a kind of Tory altruism, albeit with an evangelical idiom and a Texan accent.
Some sophisticated analysts, such as my National Review colleague Ramesh Ponnuru, always acknowledged the philosophical shortcomings and inconsistencies of compassionate conservatism, but argued that something like it was necessary nonetheless. The evolving demographics of the country, combined with the profound changes to both the culture and the economy, demanded the GOP change both its sales pitch and its governing philosophy.
Compassionate conservatism increasingly faded from view after 9/11. Bush ran as a war president first and a compassionate conservative at best second in 2004. Still, it's worth remembering that Bush won a staggering (for a Republican) 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. Romney got 27 percent.
Moreover, according to exit polls, Romney decisively beat Obama on the questions of leadership, values and economic expertise, but was crushed by more than 60 points on the question of which candidate "cares about people like me."
I still don't like compassionate conservatism or its conception of the role of government. But given the election results, I have to acknowledge that Bush was more prescient than I appreciated at the time.
There is some truth to what you say, but you are missing my point. How do we really know the segment that is immune to truth and logic is too big - when we are not really campaigning with truth and logic?
For example: How do we know, when Paul Ryan agrees that Obama and Biden “inherited” a bad economy, that people can’t understand that said economy was crippled by policies Obama and Biden agree with - UNLESS we tell them and stop agreeing they “inherited it” from Bush?
OR: how do we know, when Mitt congratulates Obama on bin Laden, that people won’t understand that tactics put in place by Cheney and Rumsfeld got bin Laden - unless we TELL THEM?
So yes, people are immune to logic - but especially - if we REFUSE TO EVER USE IT! And THAT is my point.
We only have to flip about 2%. Now, the longer we wait, the more we will have to flip, but don’t tell me it won’t work, if we never try it.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. *shrug*
What is “compassionate” about holding a gun to my head to extract tax dollars, to be given to others unwilling to earn their own way, to support behavior of which I disapprove?
What is “compassionate” about forcibly supporting immorality, destroying the family, undermining the work ethic, and denying the fundamental right of private property?
What is “compassionate” about the willful destruction of any semblance of education, to replace it with indoctrination into the preferred belief system of a self-appointed elite class?
What is “compassionate” about believing that much of the population is incapable of existing without coddling worthy of infants?
Sorry, not buying it.
There is some truth to what you say, but you are missing my point. How do we really know the segment that is immune to truth and logic is too big - when we are not really campaigning with truth and logic?
For example: How do we know, when Paul Ryan agrees that Obama and Biden “inherited” a bad economy, that people can’t understand that said economy was crippled by policies Obama and Biden agree with - UNLESS we tell them and stop agreeing they “inherited it” from Bush?
OR: how do we know, when Mitt congratulates Obama on bin Laden, that people won’t understand that tactics put in place by Cheney and Rumsfeld got bin Laden - unless we TELL THEM?
So yes, people are immune to logic - but especially - if we REFUSE TO EVER USE IT! And THAT is my point.
We only have to flip about 2%. Now, the longer we wait, the more we will have to flip, but don’t tell me it won’t work, if we never try it.
Truth will eventually win, it will just take the right person to point out the lie that is liberalism.
Liberalism has always failed and will always fail. That’s just a fact.
This FACT needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
We need to start with FDR and rewrite the history books to show what an utter failure liberalism has ALWAYS been.
That’s true in a lot of ways.
You’ll like this, or, at least agree with it:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/bushs_legacy_none_of_the_above_1.html
“compassionate conservatism”
Yeah, like conservatism is evil and cruel.
Reminds me of how the word gay was stolen and now means homosexual trumps happy.
If Bush represents conservatism and he is what they should aspire to be like—count me out. I’ll find a new word.
I knew that would be the first response, but I don’t see it that way.
Compassionate Conservatives are not “democrat-lite”. Instead we apply conservative principles to lift people up, create wealth, and enhance personal freedom. I’m talking about myself and others, I don’t speak for GWB or know what was in his heart. Nor do I know what this author believes, but there is no dichotomy between having compassion for others and believing strongly in conservatism.
There are good, compassionate people on both sides of the aisle. but WE are the ones who look at government as the CAUSE, not the solution to problems. We are the ones who know that only through personal freedom and the exercise of God-given rights can people truly prosper and enjoy the blessings of liberty.
Ya know....screw this! There isn’t a republican party. The republicans are democrats and the democrats are progressive communists.
The Democrat Party and the Progressive party. That is what we have now.
The notion that he was above "all that" is bunk, our system of election is an adversarial one where you fight with words & ideas. He never stood up & defended conservatism and explained the evils of liberalism.
The only thing he did that a Demonrat wouldn't have done is cut taxes and even then he didn't make them permanent even when Republicans controlled all 3 branches.
compassionate conservatism - Someone who believes in charity, but chooses to whom and how much of their own personal wealth they choose to give and is content without talking about it and telling everyone how much they give to charity.
Someone who believes in God, traditional American family, family values, strong military, stronger foreign policy, and robust economy.
Until we get our children out of public schools; that will NEVER happen. We need several generations of parents willing to school their children at home. _Private schools? Tutoring? We need a solution to the poison being pumped into our children at school. It's going on right now.
This needs to be job #1.
The opportunity is golden. There were whole geographic areas in Ohio, Pennysylvania, and Florida that voted 100% Obaman. That makes it easy, you only have to find a handful of voters who will sign affidavits that they voted for Romney.
There were busloads of blacks who showed up in rural districts to register and vote. Blacks - Maine - Rural? Get on it!
Computer modeling was used to show them where and how to cheat. Computer models can be used to show where and how to investigate.
Lincoln also needs to be exposed for the war criminal and dictator that he was.
Real history needs to be taught instead of the propaganda.
Yeah you do, Jonah, along with about 150 million others.
“Clearly articulating why conservatism itself WORKS, and therefore IS compassionate, would be something not tried in a long time.”
Spot on!
I am afraid the Liberals have done a great job of getting people to believe that conservatism is mean spirited and only for the rich. Conservatives have done a terrible job arguing in opposition!
Mel
It’s anecdotal, for sure, but there is a clear pattern of people simply ignoring facts that do not correspond to their preconceived notions. I saw a Mark Twain quotation the other day, and I’ll have to paraphrase because I didn’t mark it, but it’s basically: it’s easier to fool someone that to convince them that they’ve been fooled.
People who have had their opinions shaped by the schools, the media, and Hollywood, simply cannot process information that contradicts that. I’ve seen it in action over and over again — they will either ignore an inconvenient fact, or if they can’t ignore it, they will dispute the source (”oh, that came from Fox News’), question the motives (”that research group is funded by a foundation who has one member who does business with the Koch Brothers!”), or, a personal favorite of mine, the good old false moral equivalence (”well, even if that is true, what about [insert totally irrelevant “counter-example” here]?”).
And that’s the behavior from people I know to otherwise be of high intelligence.
While I don’t agree with everything W. did I sum it up with this line as I told it to my wife and a few others, “I would rather have George W. Bush holding a knife at my throat than have Obama invite me to dinner.”
Excellent point
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.