Why does one have to add the adjective “compassinate” to conservatism?
This implies that conservative principles are NOT compassionate ( as opposed to liberalism ).
By doing this we are already conceding to the FALSE implication that conservatives are inhumane.
WE OUGHT TO REJECT THIS IDEA and educate people to show them that conservatism is IN AND OF ITSELF COMPASSIONATE ( more compassioante than the cruel results of liberalism ).
Some GOP candidates need to drop out and consolidate the conservative base....otherwise Romney will take his small faction, win some primaries, and pronounce his “momentum”.
Exactly. Limited government is compassionate. Any state that has a huge amount of control over its peoples’ incomes and which doles out spending on social programs to take care of people ends up being a tyranny. There is no statist government in history that was ever compassionate. The Soviet Union? North Korea? Cuba? They are all giant prison camps.
As for the posted lead article, it is an effort to avoid part of the real debate by attributing the traditional non-meddling U.S. Foreign Policy to Charles Lindbergh, rather than Washington & Jefferson.
Let's have the debate, by all means; but allow those of who oppose World Government & any foreign policy initiatives, not clearly in America's interest, the opportunity to define our own arguments. (See Pseudo Pragmatism--Political Folly, which quotes Washington directly on the psychological issues often overlooked in the foreign policy debate.)
Finally, while I like many things about Santorum, his rejection of the idea that social policy as to health, safety & morals, was supposed to be left to the States, makes it impossible to support him, until he acknowledges that such issues must be governed by the oath to support the Constitution.
William Flax