“you really need to drop”
But I still didn’t understand your post. Leave it as is if you wish. I actually had no idea what you were saying other than something about us all being brothers. Sounds nice, but I don’t know how that gets translated into actual policy.
Elucidator:
Well, I’ve just watched the first half of The Two Towers, and I have to say, you do a hell of a Grimer Wormtounge impression.
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.
I think that given the opportunity some will do wonders.
I’m sorry, man, but I’ve read this several times, and I’m just not grasping your point. Are you claiming that it’s just as bad to have people employed as it is to have them on welfare? You DO know that employment (in theory) produces goods and product, whereas welfare does not, right?
Not enough invective, but the brevity is good. 
Elucidator:
Well, I’ve just watched the first half of The Two Towers, and I have to say, you do a hell of a Grimer Wormtounge impression.
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.
I think that given the opportunity some will do wonders.
Grim:
Good points to a mostly rhetorical question. Pretty much the same conclusion I’d drawn in earlier threads.
I don’t know, I still can’t help thinking that “compassionate conservatism” is an oxymoron like “Microsoft Works” or “Republican Party.”
I know that plenty of conservatives are compassionate but it seems to me that they are compasionate in spite of their political view not because of them.
Jeez, Scylla, and I get accused of waxing too flowery! You almost had me in tears about that hopeless lion, pacing in its insanity. Till I thought “Hey, how the fuck does he know what a lions thinking? Maybe he’s just wishing he could get out and shred our butts. I sure as hell would!” Still, rather poetic, kinda like Ayn Rand meets Emily Dickinson.
A spot of pithy/counter-pity?
“Robbed of self-reliance” Piffle. All us monkeys rely on each other.
“Robbed of excellence” Whatever the hell that means. Has a nice ring to it.
“Robbed of the ability to be masters of one’s own destiny.” Stop, you’re killing me! Did you write the latest round of Army recruiting ads?
But you’re not done, not till you accuse me of a soulless agenda for crushing the human spirit in the pitiless grip of Humanistic Socialism. And yes, of course, I do think I know how things should be run, so do you, otherwise, why are you arguing?
Now isn’t that a coincidence? I was just thinking something very similar about you! Of course, I’m too nice a guy to say it first.
Oooh, oxymorons! Can I play? How about… “Government Intelligence” and “liberal helping”?
Bah. And I could say the same thing from about liberals, from my POV. But I won’t, because…
Compassion is an individual trait, not a blanket quality of a political party or government agency. The political view of a person primarily indicates what methods he/she thinks are best to solve the problems. Not everybody agrees on the best methods, or even on what the most important problems are.
IMHO, compassion is indicated more by a person’s motivation and goals than by the methods they feel are the best to achieve them. But that’s obviously harder for an observer to see, now, isn’t it?
While I applaud the right’s compassionate rhetoric, how about putting them into actual practice instead of just paying them lip-service?
How many Republicans are for equitable distribution of education funds (i.e. removing the tie to property taxes)?
How many Republicans are in favor of a sliding scale welfare system (weighted somewhat in favor of the recipient), instead of the all-or-nothing scheme we have now?
How many Republicans that oppose AA are in favor of providing free legal counsel for discrimination cases, and also no limit to the damages awarded, so we can finally stop the problem at its source?
How many Republicans are in favor of raising the minimum wage to a point where one doesn’t need to rely on the system to survive?
And for those who claim that we should let charitable organizations do helping, and that they would automatically get enough funds to do so if we weren’t being taxed as much, can you please cite the huge increase in charitable contributions from the last tax rebate?
There are folks who want to help people help themselves, there are those who want to help people who can’t help themselves, and there are folks who would just as soon not give a penny to anyone but their accountant and Mercedes dealer, but I’m not really aware of anyone who wants to support people for life, simply because they choose not to work.
…charitable organizations do the helping…
No, but again, that’s what the whole democratic process is about. When Candidate A says “vote for me and I will increase spending for research into breeding more efficient weasels,” your choice of whether or not to vote for him is (among other things) a stand on how you feel about funding weasel sex.
I see the whole “Salvation Army vs. Federal Government” as variations of the same thing – you can either donate voluntarily, or you can steer where the money goes. I guess it just annoys conservatives that their aims don’t always jive up with what the rest of the citizenry wants.
RJUNG: You can choose to donate $0 to the S.A. You cannot choose to pay 0 taxes. Is that a difference?
Of course you can. And I’ve never said otherwise. But I certainly have less of a chance to show “compassion” this way – and how the electoral process works has nothing to do with the point I was arguing. I was arguing John Mace’s original point that individuals show “compassion”, not governments. One cannot use such a broad brush to say “Our version of government is compassionate, and yours is not”.
Oooh, nice blanket statement! Can I play?
Let’s see… “It also annoys liberals that their aims don’t always jive up with what the rest of the citizenry wants”.
Hey, that works too! Let’s do another one…
Difference of degrees, dude. Under welfare, a person has no choice as to who he is reliant upon, whereas a person that’s employed DOES have that choice (still a very minimal choice for some people, but A choice is better than NO choice… I thought you were pro-choice, 'Lucy? :D)
Well, even someone that works at McDonald’s can strive to be the Best Goddamned Burger Flipper That Ever Lived. Someone on welfare can strive to be… what? The Best Goddamned Welfare Recipient That Ever lived? Not many degrees of performance in that category, frankly.
So-o-o-o-o… it is your stance, then, that people that earn their own money have zero control over their lives? Just tryin’ to clarify, big guy.
This is odd, 'Lucy, but I’ll tell you what: You tell me where the Land of the Lotus Eaters is, where people don’t have to work and all their needs are provided to them via manna from heaven, where the sun shines all day long and children romp happily through the fields, where everything is perfect and where Walgreens is unnecessary, and I’ll pick you up and we’ll drive there together. The first toke will even be on me.
But until that Magical Fairy Land is discovered, I see nothing terrible about trying to get as many people self-sufficient as possible. Care to explain why this is a cruel viewpoint to have?
It doesn’t surprise me that conservatives want to eqaute compassion with tough love, or define it as caring about suffering, but not requiring action. They have no other frame of reference for it; the concepts embodied by compassion are foreign to the conservative ethic.
Compassion is generous. Compassion has no profit motive. Compassion is given without expectation of return. Compassion is selfless.
These are not qualities that easily coexist with conservative bottom-line values. Let’s parse Bush’s words again:
There is always a quid pro quo with conservatives. They are incapable of giving unconditionally; if they receive nothing in return, be it compensation of value, or performance of approved behavior, it is a bad bargain; or worse, immoral conduct. I suspect this is why they want to funnel aid to the disadvantaged through “faith-based organizations” (churches, to the rest of us), so that the souls of those guilty of the sin of being poor and powerless can be subjected to the appropriate application of shame, then guided to the light of conservative values. Thou shalt have no free lunch.
But compassion plays well with voters, and Republicans find it necessary to find some way to associate themselves with a principle they inwardly abhor. What to do? Create a meaningless phrase that sounds like compassion, but construct a contorted definition that lets you off the hook for the immorality of a profitless transaction. It is the same thing they did with the “Patriot Act”; a repugnant effort devoid of patriotism, but wrapped in the flag to make it palatable to the public.
The result is “The Compassionate Conservative”, an appellation that should have been interred in the graveyard of miscarried slogans after the last election. But instead, Bush has reanimated it, a blunder of Frankensteinian proportions that will most certainly turn on its creator. I plan to donate pitchforks and torches to the villagers.
This statement is simply incorrect. Numerous conservatives have piped up in this thread, myself included, to state that the conservative view of compassion does indeed entail action: we all agree that there should be a safety net, but think that it ought not be a permanent place of repose.
You say that placing conditions on aid is a sign of lack of compassion. Quite the contrary, I say it is more compassionate. What is more compassionate, to hand a man short-term aid and training with the expectation that he will take steps to stand on his own two feet, or just throwing money at the man regardless of whether he is progressing towards self-sufficiency? The former promotes self-worth and independence; the latter self-loathing and dependency.
My one beef with Bush over the slogan “compassionate conservatism” is the implied notion that, pre-Bush, conservatism wasn’t compassionate. Which isn’t true: conservatism is interested in the relief of suffering in a permanent and meaningful way. It’s a cliche, and already used in this thread, but if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. And you add to his self-worth to boot.
Liberal compassion is taking a poor sap to Red Lobster. Conservative compassion is buying him a rod and reel, and showing him how to use it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Monstre *
Compassion is an individual trait, not a blanket quality of a political party or government agency. The political view of a person primarily indicates what methods he/she thinks are best to solve the problems. Not everybody agrees on the best methods, or even on what the most important problems are.
QUOTE]
As is clearly demonstrated by the quote above, the self-identified “Conservative” of today’s political arena is at best ignorant of and at worst wilfully self-delusional about the ideology he/she espouses.
Political ideologies have absolutely no philosophical grounding in methodology. A methodology for problem solving is simple engineering. The “political view” Monstre mentions is better described as a fundamental interpretation of the role of the government and the individual in civil society. For a clear definition of “Conservative”, see this link:http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/conservative.htm
Should Monstre or perhaps our dear deluded friend December happen to exercise some intellectual honesty (yeah, right), it will become clear that the public policy choices most commonly promulgated by self-confessed “conservatives” are not only anathema to the true definition of conservatism, but are also fundamentally antithetical to cherished American values like compassion, liberty, opportunity, innovation, and justice.
The REAL threat to “truth, justice, and the American way” is not the suicidal pawn of religious zealotry - physical threats can be confronted and strangled at the source (although obviously not by providing recruiting fodder by creating martyrs, Mr. President). More insidious is the wolf in elected clothing who attacks our values at their heart.
It is perfectly feasible for a true conservative to be compassionate. But actions speak louder than words - elected officials who lay claim to the term “conservative” have consistently and repeatedly acted in ways no true conservative could stand. Based on this administration’s public policy choices and agenda, there is no evidence whatsoever that would lead us to equate George W. Bush’s ideology of “conservatism” with any kind of compassion.
DMC,
This republican is for more equitable distribution of education funds provided that throwing money at underperforming schools is not the primary plan. There are a number of schools which serve primarily low income families that nevertheless have above average standardized test scores. Any redistribution of education funds MUST be accompanied by educational reform.
This republican is in favor of need based social programs, not because they are a ‘right’, but because we live in a wealthy society, wish to help people who have through no fault of their own are experiencing trying times and we are magnanimous. I would also state that all welfare programs need automatic periodic review and analysis to ensure that the program is effective, efficient and combined with training and educational resources to get people back on their feet. Capable people who refuse training or that don’t make a good faith effort to make it on their own should be cut off the public dole after a reasonable period of time. Ineffective programs should be terminated or reformed. No welfare or aid program should be provided based on race, gender, belief system, nor any other characteristic irrelevant to need.
There is no such thing as free. The only entity which can pretend to provide free services is the government. Though the government may not charge you for the services it would still have to provide pay, facilities, administration services, and other materials (computers, furniture, etc.) for the new legion of government lawyers which handle these cases. The cost of their wages and tools comes directly out of the pocket of Joe taxpayer. If this service is provided “free” to anyone how much resources and work hours will be wasted servicing frivolous and groundless suits? How many people will decide to “give suing a try since it’ll cost me nothing”? Or will use the free legal service provided as a bludgeoning tool for generating settlements? Frankly, this idea is not well thought out.
One of two things is possible here, either the true market value of unskilled labor is higher than minimum wage or the market value of unskilled labor is lower than the minimum wage. If the true market value is higher than no employer offering minimum wage will receive willing employees since other employers are undoubtedly willing to the going rate. If the true market value is lower than employers may choose to try and get by utilizing fewer employees. Raising the minimum wage is not a panacea. It may help low income and unskilled workers, a little, if it is raised marginally. If you raise the minimum wage beyond a certain point however it is bound to produce more negative results than positive ones. A minimum wage which is equivalent to the “living wage” in a given locale would undoubtedly be destructive.
I don’t claim that a cut in taxes generates an automatic increase in charitable giving. I do claim, though, that an increase in taxes generally reduces charitable giving. Any increase in taxes, then, should be done with the understanding that a reduction in private charity is likely.
This is terrible. I’ll reword it thusly:
“Social programs are not a ‘right’. We as a society provide them because we wish to be compassionate towards people who have had ill luck befall them. We can afford to provide these programs because we are wealthy.”
I’d suggest people read Bill Whittle’s website at www.ejectejecteject.com