"Er, Mr. President, there's a problem with your card. It's been denied."
"Denied? How can that be? Why is that?"
Posted on 09/24/2005 12:46:25 PM PDT by cowdog77
Is this the end of 'compassionate conservatism'? ~Jonah Goldberg
Here's my silver-lining hope this hurricane season: George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism gets wiped out like a taco hut in the path of a Cat. 5 storm.
Outside of people inside the administration, I've never met anyone who really likes the president's "compassionate conservatism." To the extent conservatives praise it at all, they celebrate the fact that compassionate conservatism got Bush elected. This is no small or insignificant feat, note the realists. Without victory, nothing else is possible. "It's the lady that brought us to the dance," they explain.
Now, don't get me wrong. I actually respect much of the substance of compassionate conservatism. Now that a "neoconservative" has been idiotically redefined to mean a warmonger who never buys retail, we forget that much of neoconservatism was really an argument about domestic policy.
The basic neoconservative criticism of the welfare state was that it had most of its incentives lined up incorrectly. Young women were told that government would essentially pay them to have more babies out of wedlock. Criminals were led to believe it was someone else's fault they robbed liquor stores. Students weren't -- and still aren't -- compelled to excel at school.
The neocons didn't oppose the welfare state per se. They opposed a welfare state that made society worse. (Irving Kristol even argued for a "conservative welfare state.") Hence Social Security never bothered them much, because delaying subsidies until one's golden years is unlikely to create the sorts of perverse incentives that might lead to roving gangs of octogenarian car thieves.
The compassionate conservatism of such intellectuals as Marvin Olasky and Myron Magnet was really just a fleshing-out of these neoconservative observations (though, in Olasky's case, with a bit more religion thrown in). They emphasized that not only is it bad public policy to encourage destructive behavior, but it's uncompassionate to the very people government is trying to help.
Welfare-state liberals insisted they "cared" more because they favored higher spending on schools. The compassionate conservatives responded with "care all you like, but the schools stink." The best summation of the entire enterprise was Bush's mantra about "the soft bigotry of low expectations."
So, if I agree with all that, what's the problem? First, as a political slogan, compassionate conservatism was always a low blow. Almost by definition, people who claim to be compassionate conservatives are suggesting that other kinds of conservatives aren't. Conservatism, rightly understood, never needed the adjective.
The second problem is that compassionate conservatism necessarily demands government activism. If normal conservatives are either too cheap or too uncaring to spend billions of dollars of other peoples' money on dubious social improvements, then compassionate conservatives must feel and do otherwise. In 2003, President Bush proclaimed, "We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move." Bush is certainly living up to that sentiment in the wake of Katrina. He's determined to prove he cares about black people, and "hurt" people, by spending more than the other guys.
But Katrina demonstrates to a certain extent how both compassionate conservatism and welfare-state liberalism alike are uncompassionate. Inheriting from the neocons a basic philosophical comfort with the concept of the welfare state, compassionate conservatism -- which also goes by "big government conservatism" -- sees no pressing need to pare government down to its core functions. Traditional conservatism, on the other hand, considers a lean government essential to the task of fulfilling its core responsibilities.
A great many liberals in recent weeks have argued that conservative hostility to big government suggests we don't support agencies like FEMA or fire and rescue services. This is nonsense. Every conservative I know wants firemen to put out fires. We don't, however, want firemen asking us how our marriage is going or lecturing us about how to be more "sensitive." A fireman can't put out the fires at my house if he's at your house giving you a big hug.
Ultimately, this is the core problem with all ideologies that try to make government an extension of the family. Welfare-state liberalism wants the government to act like your mommy. Compassionate conservatives want the state to be your daddy. The problem: Government cannot love you, nor should it try.
Love empowers us to do some things government must never have the power to do and other things the government can almost never do well. Parents are real social engineers. I can arbitrarily force my child to eat, play and dress as I see fit -- all in the hope this will make her a better person. I can punish her for making choices that are perfectly legal and reward her for making giant strides that look tiny or invisible to those in government, and which are none of their business anyway.
To its credit, compassionate conservatism understands this better than liberalism, which is why Bush wants to release "the armies of compassion" on the poor. Religious-based organizations are better equipped to offer tough love. But all that might as well be theology at this point. The real compassionate conservatism is the one from Bush's campaign speeches. It's all about proving that conservatives "care" -- no matter how much it costs.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online.
Wipe! Wipe! Wipe! Wipe! Wipe!
Then the heck with 'em.
In 2003, President Bush proclaimed, "We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move."
Government should then move to some place like, say, France.
Goldberg held one job in his life as a grammer school teacher - overseas - then all the rest is about think tank work. How does this qualify him to tell the working people what needs to be done in life? I'm getting just as sick of right wing media dogs as the MSM.
Article nicely articulates what I have believed from the Beginning.....
But then, I was born Conservative.
That's what I thought when I took my screen name . . .
"Yes, we're bank robbers, but at least we are not rapists like those guys."
There's not much pride in boasting you are slightly less rotten than the other guys.
Nancy Pelosi eat your heart out.. Dubya stole your line..
"Denied? How can that be? Why is that?"
"Compassionate Conservatism" = "Conservative" Socialism
I think Bush morphed into "a Compassionate Cashservative" ...
The other thing is the superior court, no other courts.
Look what we get with compassionate conservatism another day older and deeper in debt.
But it's hard work.
And the money out of our wallets. Isn't it sad when a Republican steals a democrats, even worse, a line from Pelosi?
It all comes down to what you believe "compassion" means. I don't think it means giving money to people all the time. But that's just me.
The Shrub is getting brazen... and even the Bushbats may start soon shaking their heads in unbelief.. NAH!.. He(the shrubster) could get caught at a strategy meeting with Bwany Fwank and "Chappaquidick" Ted planning the Hildebeast's Presidential run and they would have an excuse..
But THAT quote will follow him to his grave.. I intend on passing it around myself.. That quote says more about him than an honest 3 hr. speech..
RINOimus Maximus is goosing Lady Liberty with his horn... and she may even LIKE IT... There may be very few actual republicans left.. hopefully I'm wrong..
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.