The Fallacy of Compassionate Conservatism

Great Debates
1

As I was browsing around www.georgebush.com, I noticed they have pages devoted to his policies on the issues of the day, among which is Compassion. I thought the cynical concept of the “compassionate conservative” had been reduced to a term of derision, but apparently Dubya is sticking with it, and defines it thusly:

Then, his position on how to achieve compassion is set forth:

Pardon me, but doesn’t that just say, “You’re on your own, sink or swim?” Where is the compassion by which he wants to “actively help our fellow citizens in need”? Later in the complete issue brief, Bush points to his support for education as evidence of his compassion:

While I also support education, it is more than a stretch to call it an act of compassion, and rather pathetic to have to point it out to everybody. Compassion, like mercy, is not strained, and this analogy is a goddamn colander.

He then moves on to place the emphasis on faith-based initiatives and volunteerism as the cornerstones of his compassion. He apparently thinks that applauding the compassion of others counts as compassion of his own. Finally we get to some assistance programs, but they are for rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, it is a good thing that we clean up the messes we make, but is it compassion? Or touting the 580,000 foreign students enrolled in the U.S.; again, it’s laudable, but how does it demonstrate compassion?

The rest of his compassionate initiatives are directed towards foreign countries in the form of assistance to fight the spread of AIDS and support for basic education in the developing world, which is again laudable, but by highlighting efforts in foreign countries, the indifference towards the disadvantged here at home is glaringly apparent. Finally, he touts his $600 million support for anti-addiction programs here in America; but this one program is buried within a resume padded with mostly unrelated efforts that cannot be construed as compassion by any stretch of the imagination.

Compassion is one of the weakest planks in the Republican platform, and “Compassionate Conservatism” is a desperately transparent fig leaf that vainly attempts to obscure this weakness. To dress up personal responsibility as compassion is insincere at best, but it’s the best card Bush has. He dare not express his real views about how to address the disadvantaged in society; social Darwinism doesn’t play well with the masses, so candor goes by the wayside in his pursuit of votes.

I can understand the conservative view that it is not the role of government is to assist the downtrodden and disadvantaged; however, I object when they try to pass off indifference as compassion. If Bush thinks spending federal funds on social programs is a waste of the taxpayer’s money, then I would appreciate it if he would just say so. But don’t piss on America’s shoes, then tell us it’s April showers.

2

Compassion should be constrained. It is not at all foolish to say that we should have hard heads as well as soft hearts - our distress at disadvantage should not blind us to to the notion that helping can have the unintended consequence of prolonging disadvantage.

Some, of course, might seek to use such a recognition to cloak indifference in the clothes of virtue.

3

Couldn’y agree with the OP more.

4

And couldn’t type any better either.

5

I disagree. Sometimes insistence on personal responsibility is the most compassionate thing you can do for someone.

Compassion - Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it.

Dependence brings with it its own kind of suffering. Conservatives rightly insist that allowing multiple generations to languish by providing them with consequence-free perpetual government assistance only causes an endless cycle of suffering. To make personal responsibility a condition of government assistance is in fact a very compassionate thing to do.

Conservatives believe that, while there should be a social safety net for those who find themselves in dire straits, that safety net should not be a permanent place of repose. It should be an interim solution for a person to assist them in getting back on their feet. To do otherwise doesn’t just injure the taxpayers paying for the assistance; it injures the person on assistance, because it does not provide incentives for him or her to stand on his or her own two feet. There is pride and self-worth to be found in being a productive member of society; government should encourage people in that direction as a matter of policy.

6

I think here you’re misreading rather woefully, as Dewey and hawthorne have pointed out, and you’ve set up a false dichotomy.

For example, let’s say you come across someone who has no job and hence no money.

“You’re on your own, sink or swim” would be to not help the person at all, and of course there’s no compassion there.

Giving the person a weekly handout would not dictate that he take personal responsibility, and there’s no conservatism there.

Helping the person get a job, although more difficult than either ignoring the problem or tossing money at it, would be better for all involved, I think. And it would certainly be a way of helping this disadvantaged person while still requiring personal responsibility on his part; now that he has the job, it’s his responsibility to keep it and earn his own paycheck.

7

Libertarian speaking here.

I think that the use of the term “compassion” is a two-sided coin. Liberals complain that the current Administration isn’t compassionate because it isn’t throwing money down the Welfare and Social Security wells. The Conservative Administration is replying that they are compassionate because they are helping citizens break their dependence on social programs, and become self-reliant, “And what’s more compassionate than that?” Thus, the whole talk about responsibility.

In my view, that seems to be the difference between the Liberals’ and the Conservatives’ definitions of “compassion” and how it is to be applied by the Government. In my view, and the Constitution’s, it is not the prime responsibility of the Government to cloth, feed, and shelter its citizens. The Government is there to provide the environment so that the citizens can do it themselves.

America is a country that is about freedom of pursuit of one’s goals, as unhindered as possible, where one can do as much or as little as they want, and can claim these successes and failures as their own. Self-reliance is practically written into the Constitution.

I do agree with the President’s statement that you posted, and it sums up my feelings about the subject quite well. Of all of the official English speaking countries in the world, America seems to be the one that most relies on self-responsibility (but correct me if I am wrong, please, so that I can begin planning my move). And I couldn’t be happier about that.

8

Someone’s got to do it.

Cite?

9

I think that when you look at the photos he has labeled under compassion you get a clearer picture of what he means by it
http://www.georgebush.com/News/photoalbum.aspx?gallery=29.

So I’d say that everybody has a different idea of compassion.

10

So, in the Republican Bible, is the Samaritan a good guy, or a bleeding-heart Liberal?

Compassion with works to relieve the suffering is pity. Let’s call a spade a spade, that’s all Republicans have for those less fortunate than themselves.

11

without works

12

I agree with the OP. The word “compassionate” is obvious horseshit as used by GWB. Basically the policy is stating that we should simply abandon the most powerless among us and pretend we’re doing them a favor. Sometimes I really wish there was a God just so hypocritical “Christians” like Shrub would have to stand before Jesus and hear the parable of the sheep and the goats one more time before they fry.

13

Fear Itself, that’s an excellent example of selective reading. You’ll note that Dewey didn’t say anything about doing nothing to relieve the suffering. Here, I’ll highlight it, since you seem to have missed it:

In other words, in the Republican Bible would say that the Good Samaritan is a good guy.

None of this, mind you, says anything about whether the policies implemented live up to the ideals outlined. But to suggest that all conservatives have is pity for the less fortunate, with no desire to change their situation, is something which could be reasonably characterized as ridiculous. You’re confusing a disagreement about the means to achieve a particular end with a disagreement about the end which should be reached, and until you recognize that, all you’ll be doing is tilting at windmills.

14

From Fear Itself

My understanding of the Republican position (not being a republican I might be wrong, so correct me if I am) is not that there should be no safety net at all…just that there should be some limit on how long you can use the safety net before you have to go out and swim on your own again. Pragmatic compassion I guess you could call it…or tough love.

I kind of swing back and forth across the political lines in our country on various issues, but on THIS issue I’d have to agree with what I THINK is what the Republicans are saying here. The government isn’t there to feed and clothe you, only to provide an environment for you to do so on your own. Everyone has hard times though, so that position is softened a bit by the safety net (unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc.). But there are limits and at some point people have to take responsibility for themselves.

And before any of you liberal types chime in by saying how easy it is for me to say this, I’ll point out that my family HAS been on welfare before (have YOURS??), and I remember those times. And I remember my father and mother clawing their way off of it too. Its no easier for hispanics to make their way in this country than any other minority, especially in the south west…but its no harder either.

I’m big on the statement “give the man a fish, and you feed him for a day…teach him to fish and you feed him and his family for a life time”. My folks used government assistance to make ends meet, to keep myself and my siblings clothed and fed, to get us an education and learn to speak and write english, and to get our family back on its feet. I (shamelessly) used the government tit to put myself through college, and now I’m a successful engineer. If such unpromissing material as I could do it, anyone can. THATS compassion…
/aside
Maybe its me, but I’ve always found the liberal view of minorities slightly condesending (this might be because of some of my east coast friends too, so might not be very representative of the TRUE ‘liberal view’)…as if, because I’m hispanic I NEED the government to take care of me, to feed and clothe me and my family, to take care of me because I’m incapable of doing it myself. Oh, they don’t come out and say it that way, but thats the impression I get reading between the lines. Maybe thats the wrong impression, but its always seemed that way to me.
/aside

-XT

15

Bingo. Or, more exactly, that is conservative compassion. Treating people as if they were responsible for their own lives.

Liberals hate this kind of compassion, because it fosters independence. Liberals (more often than they should) are interested in compassion which creates dependency, in furtherance of an agenda of [ul][li] Creating new classes of people who will vote reliably for liberal candidates (so as to keep the money flowing), and [/li][li]Keeping people firmly dependent on government, and therefore under their thumb[/ul][/li]
Think about it. Liberals oppose limits on welfare, because long-term dependency on welfare means a reliably liberal class of voters. Liberals support affirmative action, so that people feel beholden to government for getting them a job, or into school. Liberals support gun control, so that people will rely more on government to fight crime. Liberals oppose privatization of Social Security, to keep people dependent on government in their retirement. Liberals oppose tax cuts, so as to keep a greater portion of the economy under government control.

Conservatives define “compassion” in this context as that which fosters long term success. Liberals define it as fostering long-term dependency.

Regards,
Shodan

16

Bush isn’t for teaching anyone to fish, though, either. The economy is in the toilet, unemployment is on the rise and he wants to gut public schools to implement the GOP voucher scam. He has no policies or plans in place to train people or equip them for self-subsistence (and most of the people who get assistance are children, btw), he just wants to throw them out in the streets to die.

17

And conservatives want poor children to starve to death so they won’t grow up to vote Democrat. :rolleyes:

And to further send the debate careening of on Shodan’s hijack:

[quote]
**Liberals support affirmative action, so that people feel beholden to government for getting them a job, or into school.

[quote]
**And concervatives are against affirmative action to so they only have to look at rich, white faces where they go to school and work. :rolleyes:

And conservatives oppose gun control because they prefer vigilante street justice to having to play by the rule of law. :rolleyes:

And conservatives favor privatization of social security so that future Enrons can steal it. :rolleyes:

Conservatives want tax cuts to further enrich the wealthy at the expense of future taxpayers who will foot the bill for today’s deficits. (no roll eyes here!)

For rich, white Republicans at the expense of everyone else. :rolleyes:

18

From Diogenes the Cynic

I thought we were talking philosophy here, namely the concepts behind Republican ideals of compassion. Actual policies implemented by the various governments (liberal or conservative, democrat or republican) don’t ever seem to reach the ideals behind their own political philosophy…after all, they have to compromise with the people in the government that have different views on how things should be. No?

I also was under the impression the economy was recovering not going down, and the unemployment was lowering, if marginally. Why all the gloom and doom when things FINALLY seem to be picking up after such a long time in the doldrums??

I prolly dislike Bush as much as you do Diogenes, but no sane politician would ever simply throw American citizens out on the streets to die, either through thought or action. Do you have a cite for Bush’s policies that seem to be heading us in that direction or is this just more partasan bullshit?? Because I’m unaware of the government policy throwing my fellow citizens out on the streets to die. For that matter, do you have any cites on said mass dieing through starvation or whatever happening in America? I seem to have missed that too.

I can’t speak to the current Bush policies on training people, but I certainly recieved some nice ‘training’ via grants for college under Reagan and his daddy. Sure taught me to fish well enough…

-XT

19

So you kow the guy is suffering and wish to help, but dont ? :slight_smile:

I agree with the OP that the conservative compassion talk should be a bit more honest. The way it was presented sounds like simple public relations BS. 

I agree social nets might create dependency and Europe has shown that too much help is bad. Still when the economic situation isnt good and the education given is not sufficient then unemployment is inevitable.... not giving a good support system means no future prospects. That is when criminals are made. People will not starve nor let their kids starve because of qualms about robbing.

The very high prison population of the US is not the way to take care of some of these economic misfits. So I think of Social spending if well done as an investment on the future of those kids and families. Crime costs way too much to be an acceptable "fact" for the price of avoiding a more reasonable and costly social net.
20

Wrong. Conservatives want poor children to learn how to feed themselves, so when they grow up they don’t have to rely on Democrats. :rolleyes:

Bullshit. Conservatives oppose gun control because they recognize that A: after a point, it does no more good, and B: they’re realistic enough to realize that a police response rate of fifteen minutes simply gets people killed. :rolleyes:

Horseshit with a side of dog puke. Conservatives recognize that government is inefficient, and so cut out the inefficiency from a program that needs all the efficiency it can get. :rolleyes:

Conservatives do indeed believe that people should be allowed to keep what they earn. Do you disagree?

Sigh. And you wonder why the Democratic party has been floundering so much lately.