When asked recently, George W. Bush indicated he was proud
to be a compassionate conservative, noting his father’s goal of a “kinder
and gentler” nation. His father’s boss, Ronald Reagan, hinted at
compassionate conservatism as well. The “philosophy” achieved a small victory
recently when Senate leader John Thune and others voted to keep funding the
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program founded by George W. Bush
that is thought to have saved an astounding 25 million lives over the years. Of
course, they have allowed other important life-saving USAID programs to expire
amid the dismantling of the agency. Bush and Obama recently joined forces to
protest the gutting of USAID by the Trump administration. An analysis published
in The Lancet suggests that the USAID cuts could cause up to 14 million deaths
from now until 2030.
Tons of food and other supplies
like contraceptives are literally being incinerated rather than delivered to
the needy (which is cheaper) as the Trump administration pursues its funding
cuts at the expense of practicality and unnecessary waste of money.
Conservatism celebrates the power
of free markets to make lives better. Compassionate conservatism aims to extend
the benefits of free markets to the poor and those in need, so that they can
benefit as well. One aspect of the currently vilified “wokeness” is
compassion/empathy. Thus, the crusade against wokeness makes it seem like they
are being unempathetic or uncompassionate. That seems like a peculiar corundum
to me, to be compelled by one’s own actions to be something one does not want
to be or at least does not want to be seen as. Is cruelty the point? Is lack of
compassion/empathy the point? Is this point influenced by anti-woke propaganda?
Aside from the Bushes, the UK’s
David Cameron was associated with compassionate conservatism. A 2006 book,
‘Compassionate Conservatism: What it is and Why We Need It’ by Jesse Norman and
Janan Ganesh, explores a British version of compassionate conservatism and
notes that there were two conservative traditions in the UK:
“…a liberal or libertarian conservatism concerned with free
markets, localism, and private property, and a paternalist conservatism that
has prioritised community and social stability.”
The authors also point out the
early work of Thomas Hobbes in defining the role of the social contract between
the government and the individual:
“In his book Leviathan, published in 1651, Hobbes argued
that human government owed its existence to a contract between all members of
society, by which they voluntarily traded autonomy for security. In the absence
of government people lived in a state of nature, a “war of all against all”, in
which all were constantly at risk and constantly afraid of violent death; a
state in which people’s lives were, in his famous phrase, “solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish and short”. The social contract is simply a rational response to
this fear. Individuals cede some freedoms on a once and-for-all basis to a
single sovereign authority which, by guaranteeing civil order and external
boundaries, gives them the space and the legal and physical protection to
associate freely with each other.”
It is such a deal and all of its
details that allow society to function as intended. The authors also note that
a connected society, connected through its institutions, tends to promote
diversity of view, independent-mindedness, and decentralization. They also
criticized George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism as neither in practice,
and mostly a campaign slogan. They called it
“…a moralising doctrine, which assumed that society’s
basic moral standards were in decline and set the federal government the task
of improving them. Thirdly, as a slogan, “compassionate conservatism” lacked a
deeper theoretical justification that could be used as a basis for long-term
policymaking. It quickly came to seem merely an electoral expedient, not a
genuine contribution to a wider political and cultural debate.”
Regarding their own version of
British compassionate conservatism, they explain:
“In a connected society, as we have seen, the emphasis
is on individual freedom and autonomy, on diversity and pluralism, on the
institutions that link people together, and on an awareness of common culture
and traditions.”
They give three principles for
political action: the freedom of the individual, decentralization of power, and
accountability. Each of these empowers the individual citizen and limits state
power. Their version of compassionate conservatism intends to strengthen and
protect society.
“Compassionate conservatism offers such a vision, from
first principles through to policy outcomes. It is a vision that requires
further thought, further development, further conversation, to be realised as
policy—and this is a task for all of us.”
I believe that compassion is an
important quality that can support a successful society and that without it, a
society is necessarily deficient.
Wikipedia gives a history of the
idea:
“Historian and presidential advisor Doug Wead may have
been the first person to use the phrase compassionate conservative. In 1977,
Wead wrote a book about Kolkata, India, entitled The Compassionate Touch. In
1979, he gave a popular speech entitled "The Compassionate
Conservative" at the annual Washington Charity Dinner. Tapes of the speech
were sold across the country at corporate seminars.”
“Wead contended that the policies of Republican
conservatives should be motivated by compassion, not protecting the status quo.
He declared himself to be "a bleeding-heart conservative," meaning
that he cared for people and sincerely believed that a free marketplace was
better for the poor.”
“Some insist the doctrine was invented by Marvin Olasky,
who went on to memorialize it in his books Renewing American Compassion (1996)
and Compassionate Conservatism: What it is, What it Does, and How it Can
Transform America (2000), and Myron Magnet of the Manhattan Institute. Olasky
has been called the "godfather of compassionate conservatism".”
George W. Bush popularized the
term during his first campaign for president in 2000. One aspect of
compassionate conservatism in action is utilizing private markets to help the
poor. Former Bush chief speechwriter Michael Gerson explained:
“Compassionate conservatism is the theory that the
government should encourage the effective provision of social services without
providing the service itself."
That sounds a bit strange to
support something without providing it, so I am not sure what the implication
is there. Early compassionate conservatism, according to Olasky and Magnat, was
based on the Christian concept of original sin. The poor should be motivated
not by feeling victimized by an unfair system but by the chance to succeed. It
is debatable whether compassionate conservatism has been successful in
practice. One thing I will note is that conservatives are very charitable,
being generally slightly wealthier than liberals and also giving more to
charity. It should be pointed out that much of that is faith-based charity.
Supporting charitable institutions is commendable and useful in any society
where there are people in need.
George W. Bush explained:
"It is compassionate to actively help our citizens
in need. It is conservative to insist on accountability and results."
In that statement, he mentions
accountability, the third principle of compassionate conservatism given by
Norman and Ganesh.
Democrats, beginning with Bill
Clinton, described compassionate conservatism as inadequate and lacking the
necessary compassion, sometimes calling it sugarcoating. Some conservatives
have criticized it in a similar way, as just campaign slogan lip service with
endorsements of some “entitlement” programs, although I think that term is
unfortunate. We should all do what we can to alleviate poverty. A compassionate
conservative is more supportive of social welfare, healthcare availability, and
compassionate immigration policies. Trumpism is decidedly not compatible with
compassionate conservatism, since it does not in general support those things.
Stephen Goldsmith wrote an article
for the Hoover Institution in October 2000 titled: ‘What Compassionate
Conservatism Is—And Is Not.’ Goldsmith considers whether it was a political
slogan or a philosophy and argues that it is a philosophy, a coherent and
principled philosophy. Instead of Big Government solving problems, the power of
private markets is employed to solve problems. My own preference is for a combo
approach, that of public-private partnerships. The idea he notes is that the
government should not directly help the poor but enable the poor to help
themselves. I say they should do both. Some people really need direct help. We
should also realize that the free market, although it is the best overall means
of creating value for all, does not work well for everyone. Goldsmith
emphasizes the creation of opportunities and the development of skills for the
poor. That is nice, but slow and uncertain. It is indirect help. In a section
called ‘Empowerment, Not Entitlement,’ he writes:
“Through its hopeful, optimistic belief in people’s
ability to overcome adversity, compassionate conservatism offers a stark
contrast to the fundamentally pessimistic view of the liberal establishment
that people can never really overcome their problems. For the most part,
Democratic liberalism, instead of creating opportunities for people to enter
the mainstream, has sought to “buy out” the less fortunate by creating a system
of government that actually disempowers those most in need by giving them less
control over their own lives. And by promoting the redistribution of income
rather than the creation of new wealth and new opportunities for investment,
liberals have consigned people in need to the sidelines, where they remain
dependent for their survival on the largesse of the state and the distant
decisions of bureaucrats.”
I am a bit skeptical here. When
people have survival-level needs, they don’t care how they obtain them. The
idea of wealthy people complaining about poor people and about helping poor
people directly reeks of privilege and pomposity. The whole conservative
“trickle down” theory espoused by Reagan has been proven to be largely
erroneous and does not function as advertised. It would benefit all of us to
have less poverty. Goldsmith calls it optimistic that people can learn to solve
their own economic problems and pessimistic if they are dependent on the
government. He notes that wealth can be created with home ownership and
retirement accounts, two things that are generally not accessible for the very
poor. He suggests that people should be able to invest a portion of their
Social Security. I am OK with that if it is by choice and directed by the
individual. He complains that too much money is going to the bureaucracies that
serve to redistribute wealth, rather than to the people in need, especially in
regard to education, which he said was inadequate in many cases. He writes:
“…compassionate conservatives support the use of
neighborhood and faith-based groups to provide essential services and to bring
value to those individuals who need assistance, whether it be in finding a job,
treating an addiction, dealing with mental health problems, or otherwise trying
to get their lives in order. Unfortunately, the big-government systems of the
Great Society supplanted the local, faith-based groups that often were highly
effective in transforming individuals’ lives, and America’s value-generating
civic institutions were derided as oppressive, parochial backwaters of bigotry
and ignorance.”
I tend to disagree. While
faith-based groups do lots of valuable, good work, they also proselytize and
judge people, often in negative ways. Sometimes, the simplicity of direct cash
from the government is best. Again, I think the best way is a combination
approach of government, NGOs, faith-based groups, secular groups, and the free
market. After all, our economic system is not solely free market capitalism. It
is a mixed system of free market capitalism with social welfare, taxation, and
regulation. When our tax codes favor the wealthy, who often pay a much lower
effective tax rate than the middle class or don't file their taxes at all, it
is rather perverse. We exempt the poor from taxes, which we must, but all
people only pay taxes based on what they earn. Some people earn nothing, and
others earn millions and billions. Income inequality reeks strongly of
unfairness. Loopholes are only really available to the wealthy.
George W. Bush wrote:
“It is conservative to cut taxes, and compassionate to
give people more money to spend. It is conservative to insist upon local
control of schools and high standards and results; it is compassionate to make
sure every child learns to read and no one is left behind. It is conservative
to reform the welfare system by insisting on work; it’s compassionate to free
people from dependency on government. It is conservative to reform the juvenile
justice code to insist on consequences for bad behavior; it is compassionate to
recognize that discipline and love go hand in hand.”
I think most can agree that the
individual should be empowered, as compassionate conservatism attempts to do in
theory, by knowledge and skill-building. However, such an approach does not
guarantee success. There is no guarantee opportunities will be created for them
or available to them. Direct ‘cash-in-hand’ is success, albeit temporary.
I am liberal, but I admire some
conservative ideas. Overall, I think compassionate conservatism is among the
best ideas of conservatives, and I would like to see more of it. However, I
don’t think it is foolproof or necessarily the best way to help the poor. I do
support using the power of the marketplace to help the poor, but I also realize
that opportunities for them are limited, and waiting for some “trickle-down”
effect is kind of ridiculous. Compassionate conservatism is not perfect, but it
is far better than the current decidedly uncompassionate conservative
government. Compassion is important for societies, no matter how it is
delivered and no matter what ideology with which it is associated.
Compassionate conservatism only works if compassion is truly given to help
those in need. Now, the current ‘me-first’ government is trying to encourage
needy Medicaid recipients to work in hot agricultural fields to replace migrant
workers. Is that compassionate conservatism? No, I don’t think so. It is more a
way of punishing them for accepting help from the government. Compassionate
conservatism is the only philosophy emphasizing compassion among conservatives,
and it is barely alive and struggling to remain relevant. I also think that the dismantling of USAID because they think NGOs might be promoting liberal or 'woke' ideas is petty, vindictive, and cruel. It is shameful and cedes soft power to countries like China, which do not even respect human rights.
References:
What Compassionate Conservatism Is—And Is Not. Stephen Goldsmith. Hoover Digest.
October 30, 2000. What
Compassionate Conservatism Is—And Is Not | Hoover Institution What
Compassionate Conservatism Is—And Is Not
Obama
and Bush Unite in Rare Move Against Trump. Leigh Kimmins. The Daily Beast. July
1, 2025. Obama
and Bush Unite in Rare Move Against Trump
Evaluating
the impact of two decades of USAID interventions and projecting the effects of
defunding on mortality up to 2030: a retrospective impact evaluation and
forecasting analysis. Daniella Medeiros Cavalcanti, PhDa ∙ Lucas de Oliveira
Ferreira de Sales, PhDa ∙ Andrea Ferreira da Silva, PhDa ∙ Elisa Landin
Basterra, MScb,c ∙ Daiana Pena, MScb,c ∙ Caterina Monti, MAb,c ∙ et al. The
Lancet. June 30, 2025. Evaluating
the impact of two decades of USAID interventions and projecting the effects of
defunding on mortality up to 2030: a retrospective impact evaluation and
forecasting analysis - The Lancet
Compassionate
Conservatism: What it is, Why we need it. Jesse Norman and Janan Ganesh. Policy
Exchange. 2006. compassionate-conservatism-june-06.pdf
Compassionate
conservatism. Wikipedia. Compassionate
conservatism - Wikipedia
No comments:
Post a Comment