# The Fallacy of  Compassionate Conservatism

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallacy-of-compassionate-conservatism/197535>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [August 25, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallacy-of-compassionate-conservatism/197535 "2003-08-25T16:02:09Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eolbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@Eolbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eolbo)\
**Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallacy-of-compassionate-conservatism/197535/101 "2003-08-29T11:14:39Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Scylla \*  
> \*\*  
> Robbed of self-reliance. Robbed of excellence. Robbed of the ability to be masters of one’s own destiny. Robbed of the ability to succeed and overcome one’s limitations. Dignity. Pride.
> 
> But I suppose you’re right. What are these things, anyway? As long as one has food, as long as one knows their children will survive, what more does a person need?
> 
> Why be anything more than an animal in a zoo. Look until the hopeless eyes of the lion in its cage, pacing in its insanity.
> 
> What more does that lion need?
> 
> But you’re right. People can’t take care of themselves. You are so much wiser. You should make the decisions for them, through the government. They will abuse their privilileges, every one of them. Of course it will happen.
> 
> Lock them in their cages. Take care of them. Leave them in their mad helplessness that you may wander by and say, “See. Look. These are men. They have all they need. Haven’t we done well?”
> 
> This is your vision? What pathetic hopelessness you live with. What a terrible prejudice and pessimism you betray.
> 
> \*\*

Ah! How much simpler life is in a pinko nation like mine where government is seen as an expression of the community rather then evil incarnate, where we give aid to the needy because its the right thing to do, and where we don’t have to listen to this type of claptrap.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\
**Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallacy-of-compassionate-conservatism/197535/102 "2003-08-29T13:40:52Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Susanann \*  
> \*\*Entangling us in a senseless middle east war. \*\*

Most conservatives supported the Iraq war. Conservatism != isolationism, outside of perhaps the Pat Buchanans of the world – i.e., the completely irrelevant elements of the conservative movement. By staking out this position, you are aligning yourself with the Ralph Naders of the world – a defensible position, sure, but hardly a “conservative” one. \*\*

> [@](#):
>
> Increasing the federal budget and bigger and bigger government. \*\*

That’s a structural problem that no one’s really been able to surmount. Not even Ronald Reagan. Would you say Reagan wasn’t “conservative?” \*\*

> [@](#):
>
> Homeland security and invasion of privacy. \*\*

National security is a big deal to conservatives. This was so during the Cold War and it is so today in the war on terror. One can argue about the efficacy and tradeoffs involved in any given measure, but those are wonkish type arguments that don’t fit under broad ideological labels. \*\*

> [@](#):
>
> Instead of getting us out of the UN he wants to use it more. \*\*

He does? That must explain the massive UN coalition of troops used in Iraq… :rolleyes: \*\*

> [@](#):
>
> He supports gun control and he wanted to extend the assault weapon bill. He has not tried to repeal any existing federal gun controls. \*\*

Politics is the art of the possible. Bush has said he supported extending the AWB, true, but it is likely that the extension legislation will fail to get out of Congress. In this way, Bush is making a play for moderate voters while ensuring that gun owners actually get what they want. It’s smart politics. I think the worst you can say is that the Bush White House is willing to play political games for electoral gains, which is true of all politicians – those that don’t generally don’t stay politicians for very long. \*\*

> [@](#):
>
> He changed our budget surpluses into big deficits in both our federal budget and balance of trade, he is destroying the dollar and our social security system. He is totally fiscally irresponsible. \*\*

Reagan gave us deficits, too. So what?

And although the political climate post-Enron has killed it, candidate Bush proposed a significant change to the Social Security system: private accounts for taxpayers. That is a decidedly conservative idea, giving individuals, rather than the government, control over their retirement savings.

(As an aside, what kind of conservative likes our social securty system? That’s a holdover from FDR. Most conservatives would like to scrap or at least radically restructure the whole damn system. I’m questioning your conservative _bona fides_.) \*\*

> [@](#):
>
> He has not eliminated one single government agency nor department, and he cant think of a single one to eliminate. \*\*

Again, this is a structural problem endemic to entrenched bureaucracy. Reagan couldn’t do it. Gingrich couldn’t do it. Why do you expect more from Bush? \*\*

> [@](#):
>
> He has done nothing for conservation and increasing the wild lands in america. \*\*

What are you, some kind of liberal hippie? We should be drillin’ in ANWR, for cryin’ out loud. \*\*

> [@](#):
>
> He is not protecting our national borders. He has done nothing to build an anti-missle system. \*\*

This is simply stupid and misinformed. Bush has done more for NMD than any president since Reagan dreamt it up. If you’ll recall, Bush backed us out of the ABM treaty specifically for the purpose of testing a NMD system, and has accellerated testing of that system. \*\*

> [@](#):
>
> He has given nothing to the Christian voters. \*\*

What do Christian voters want that Bush isn’t providing? He appointed John Ashcroft largely to appease the Christian right. He split the difference on stem-cell research. What exactly did you have in mind? \*\*

> [@](#):
>
> He not only is doing nothing to stop illegal immigration, but he wants to make citizens of the ten million illegals that snuck into here. He has not made any effort with the INS to deport all the illegals in this country. He has done nothing to stop or slow down legal immigration. He is in favor of H1-B visas and L-1 visas, and outsourcing of american jobs to foreigners.\*\*

While I agree that illegal immigration should be clamped down on, opposition to immigration in general is hardly a necessary component of a conservative stance. Free market conservatives (like me) tend to not be bothered by that, because in the long run it enriches us all. \*\*

> [@](#):
>
> He has not done anything to restore any individual liberties taken away or restricted over the years. \*\*

Such as…what? What do you want him to do? \*\*

> [@](#):
>
> He has not proposed anything to help american companies to hire amerians thru tax breaks, etc. \*\*

Perhaps you missed that whole steel tarriffs imbroglio. And perhaps you’ll notice it was conservatives who shrieked the loudest when it happened.

Conservatives generally favor free markets. They oppose protectionism, because it stifles economic growth. \*\*

> [@](#):
>
> This is just for starters. This is a partial list. I dont know of any conservatives who want him, wanted him, or like him.\*\*

You must not get out much. Read any journal of conservative thought. Or hell, just hang out in GD and listen to the conservative posters here.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\
**Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallacy-of-compassionate-conservatism/197535/103 "2003-08-29T13:46:01Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Grelby \*  
> \*\*Let’s see, first of all, the idea of a social safety net that functions “as a state of permanent repose” isn’t something I see on my Liberal Agenda checklist. Welfare, et al, are in desperate need of reform; as has been said, they need to be efficient, effective, and to encourage results. Whoops! Does that make me conservative? \*\*

It was the liberal wing of the Democratic party that shrieked the loudest when welfare reform passed in the mid-90s, which in part made it harder to live on welfare in perpetuity. That was a proposal largely championed by conservatives and denounced by liberals.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\
**Post date:** [August 30, 2003, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallacy-of-compassionate-conservatism/197535/104 "2003-08-30T01:29:31Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \*  
> \*\*It was the liberal wing of the Democratic party that shrieked the loudest when welfare reform passed in the mid-90s, which in part made it harder to live on welfare in perpetuity. That was a proposal largely championed by conservatives and denounced by liberals. \*\*

I’m having a hard time finding any shrieking, and at least one liberal described it thusly:

[Clinton Says He’ll Sign Welfare Reform Bill](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9607/31/welfare/index.shtml)

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Clinton said unlike previous Republican bills that he vetoed, the bipartisan package incorporates most of his requirements for true welfare reform, including time limits on assistance, child care and health care to help people as they go to work and child nutrition programs. The previous bills were “soft on work and tough on children,” he said. \*\*

I think you are exaggerating liberal oppostion to this bipartisan bill.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\
**Post date:** [September 2, 2003, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallacy-of-compassionate-conservatism/197535/105 "2003-09-02T17:06:25Z")

</div>

Not hardly, **Fear Itself**. Signing the welfare reform bill was a masterstroke of cooption by Bill Clinton. On that issue, he was a moderate, and he deserves credit for making it into law.

But the chief opposition to the welfare reform bill came from the Ted Kennedy wing of the Democratic party. Liberal commentary on the bill painted a picture of droves of poor children cast aside to the streets. [Charles Rangel’s](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/welfare/july96/welfare_bill_7-31.html) comments were typical, as were analyses such as [this one from NOW](http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/09-13-96.html#welfare). The 23 senators that voted against the act were all Democrats, and the overwhelming number of “no” votes in the House came from the Democratic party; in both cases, those Democrats largely came from the leftist side of their party.

So I think my description is accurate. Republicans and moderate Democrats favored the reform. Liberal Dems did not.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallacy-of-compassionate-conservatism/197535.md?page=5)