Compassionate conservatism

From Free net encyclopedia

Compassionate conservatism is a political philosophy that was invented by Marvin Olasky, who went on to memorialize it in his 2000 book Compassionate Conservatism: What it is, What it Does, and How it Can Transform America, and Myron Magnet of the Manhattan Institute. Olasky has been called the "godfather of compassionate conservatism". The phrase was popularized when George W. Bush adopted it as one of his key slogans during his 2000 presidential campaign against Al Gore.

According to its proponents, a compassionate conservative is someone who believes that conservatism and compassion go together and complement each other. This is opposed to the traditional criticism that conservatives tend to be harsh. A compassionate conservative sees the social problems of the United States, such as healthcare, immigration, the environment, etc., as being issues for which conservatives can find better solutions than the failed programs of liberals and the War on Poverty. Compassionate conservative philosophy argues for encouragement policies in support of traditional families; welfare reform to promote individual responsibilization, including workfare; active policing; standards-based schools, and helping poor countries around the world.

As U.S. president George W. Bush puts it, "It is compassionate to actively help our citizens in need. It is conservative to insist on accountability and results."[1]

Contemporary American Conservatives argue that compassion has always been in their vocabulary. This argument states that the principles of conservatism lead to a more prosperous and stable society that is inherently compassionate towards others, in which local communities help their own in a neighborly fashion, rather than depend on national efforts with less community based understanding of issues. It is also argued that Conservatives aim for a society that helps others to help themselves, thereby avoiding reliance on the government for their needs. However, some people, especially more fundamentalist conservatives as well as people from the political Left, have criticized American compassionate conservatism as just another word for a moderate, regardless of whether they are a Democrat, Republican or a member of a third party.

[edit]

Criticism of compassionate conservatism

Political opponents of conservatives, who consider conservative as compassionless, have claimed that compassionate conservatism is a meaningless phrase, an oxymoron, and an example of hypocrisy intended to confuse voters and simultaneously appeal to the middle and right of the political spectrum. These critics of the term contend that it is nothing more that a repackaging of the conservatism of Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution, a conservatism that includes "cutting programs for the poor and infirm, rolling back environmental legislation, and undermining the funding for integral institutions such as public schools". Similar criticism have been made in turn by compassionate conservatives against "New Democrats" versus classical Democrats.

Additionally, opponents of the term, and of president George W. Bush in particular, point out that describing Bush as compassionate in light of what these critics qualify as his avid support of the death penalty, the hundred thousand Iraqi citizens killed by the United States' invasion of Iraq [2], efforts toward militarizing space, et cetera, would appear to contradict his self-labelling as "compassionate." Moreover, such opponents argue that conservatives are not compassionate towards the poor, minorities, the unemployed, etc., despite the programs aimed by American compassionate conservatives to address economic empowerment of these population groups.

Conservatives, however, contend that their policies are better for these groups in the long run by creating superior opportunities through growth. In the words of Magnet,

[Compassionate conservatives] offer a new way of thinking about the poor. They know that telling the poor that they are mere passive victims, whether of racism or of vast economic forces, is not only false but also destructive, paralyzing the poor with thoughts of their own helplessness and inadequacy. The poor need the larger society's moral support; they need to hear the message of personal responsibility and self-reliance, the optimistic assurance that if they try —as they must —they will make it. They need to know, too, that they can't blame "the system" for their own wrongdoing.

Critics further charge that conservatives have historically been indifferent to the concerns of those not in the mainstream culture (see AIDS, mental illness, same-sex marriage). In fact, some charge that conservative actively stigmatize these groups (see Culture Wars). Many argue that locally-driven "compassion" creates a potential for unequal treatment of similar problems and for local biases to take precedence over general standards. Some argue that the use of charitable religious groups administering social programs violates the principle of separation of church and state; courts, however, generally recognize that the First Amendment permits religious organizations to be neutral beneficiaries of government programs.

Olasky and Magnet were not the first to use the term "compassionate conservative," but they were the first to popularize it and Bush was the one to associate it with a concrete (though unsupported) domestic policy agenda.

[edit]

1980s uses of the term

In 1984 Representative James R. Jones of Oklahoma (a Democrat) told the New York Times (8 November 1984):

I think we should adopt the slogan of compassionate conservatism...We can be fiscally conservative without losing our commitment to the needy and we must redirect our policy in that direction.

Earlier the same year Republican Ray Shamie proclaimed that "I believe in a visionary and compassionate conservatism" (Christian Science Monitor, 20 September 1984, p 19).

In 1981, Vernon Jordan of the National Urban League said, of the Reagan administration,

I do not challenge the conservatism of this Administration. I do challenge its failure to exhibit a compassionate conservatism that adapts itself to the realities of a society ridden by class and race distinction. (New York Times, 23 July 1981, p 17)

[edit]