Second look at compassionate conservatism?
Neither critics nor supporters of compassionate conservatism could come to a consensus over the question of whether it was a mushy-gushy marketing slogan (a Republican version of Bill Clinton’s feel-your-pain liberalism) or a serious philosophical argument for a kind of Tory altruism, albeit with an evangelical idiom and a Texan accent.
Some sophisticated analysts, such as my National Review colleague Ramesh Ponnuru, always acknowledged the philosophical shortcomings and inconsistencies of compassionate conservatism, but they argued that something like it was necessary nonetheless. The evolving demographics of the country, combined with the profound changes to both the culture and the economy, demanded that the GOP change both its sales pitch and its governing philosophy.
Compassionate conservatism increasingly faded from view after 9/11. Bush ran as a war president first and a compassionate conservative second (at best) in 2004. Still, it’s worth remembering that Bush won a staggering (for a Republican) 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. Romney got 27 percent.
Moreover, according to exit polls, Romney decisively beat Obama on the questions of leadership, values, and economic expertise, but he was crushed by more than 60 points on the question of which candidate “cares about people like me.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Nope. Had enough of that. Too expensive. Too statist.
a capella on November 16, 2012 at 1:23 PM
Right. Because the difference between Romney and Bush is that Romney was a far right free marketeer whereas Bush was a compassionate conservative. Not Romney’s going far to the right of Perry on immigration and refusing to reach out to Hispanics with the gimmes (e.g., FF).
besser tot als rot on November 16, 2012 at 1:24 PM
You dont need a slogan. Fiscal conservatism offers prosperity to everyone, they just need to make that clear.
Dash on November 16, 2012 at 1:24 PM
No. How about you try conservatism without any qualifiers.
kim roy on November 16, 2012 at 1:25 PM
Compassion should inform leadership, but not be the basis for governing. The basis for governing is the Constitution, the rule of law, equal rights, equal treatment under the law. People, not government, are the vehicles for compassion, love, and kindness.
Paul-Cincy on November 16, 2012 at 1:25 PM
Yep, all that “compassion” under Bush really helped the GOP lay claim to empathy for the common man, didn’t it?
changer1701 on November 16, 2012 at 1:26 PM
How about somewhere in the Middle to Middle Right???
BUSH————————X——————-Romney
portlandon on November 16, 2012 at 1:30 PM
I’ve said for years that compassionate conservatism is nothing more than liberalism. Look who’s writing about it now?
People who believe in this faux brand of conservatism aren’t conservative at all. It’s an excuse to buy votes, expand government, and destroy the notion of individual responsibility.
madmonkphotog on November 16, 2012 at 1:30 PM
Compassion is to treat people with dignity and respect.
Stealing money from producers and handing it out for votes is the ultimate form of indignity for all, for the takers, for the politicians and for the robbed ones.
Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 1:33 PM
No. Next.
Shump on November 16, 2012 at 1:35 PM
Compassion is helping those truly in need, not handing out goodies to all sorts of loafers/moochers, to sustain bureaucratic looters like the Obamas in a French lifestyle.
Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 1:35 PM
What’s the point of winning an election, if only to push the country into bankruptcy?
PattyJ on November 16, 2012 at 1:35 PM
Actually I think the same. A good example is No Child Left Behind. While I abhor the idea that the federal government should be involved in education at all I do think NCLB requirements did finally help to put the brakes on “It’s all for the kids.” The huge downturn in approval for school unions in the past decade is directly attributable to NCLB IMHO.
Part D is also given as an example of compassionate conservatism. It’s not true and I don’t think ti was ever intended as such. I think ti was to buy senior votes, which it did, but also to soften the impact of privatizing SS Bush was planning to introduce later.
Rocks on November 16, 2012 at 1:36 PM
Decency lost.
Charlatanic thuggery won.
Enjoy the cliff. Dive, heads first, fools.
The rest sit back, starve the looters, and laugh.
Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 1:36 PM
No. ‘Compassion’ at this point would involve the majority of welfare recipients being forced to do hard physical labor for their checks, because anything less is like letting a small child watch cartoons all day instead of do his homework.
And that ain’t gonna happen folks.
MelonCollie on November 16, 2012 at 1:39 PM
Instead, why don’t we trumpet the stats that while the tax code applies the same to all taxpayers, conservatives are far more generous with their time and money than liberals.
So the response to liberals should be as follows: “STFU. Charity starts at home, and continues in concentric circles with extended family, friends, neighbors, religious communities, and local communties, and any other groups in which you have personal contact with others. Only when those resources are tapped should the government safety net–not the government hammock–come into play.”
BuckeyeSam on November 16, 2012 at 1:53 PM
That was what got us into the mess we’re in right now. President Choom couldn’t have spent nearly as much as he did if Bush hadn’t started the country down the reckless-spending path (with the help of a Republican congress). There is no compassion in taxing workers into poverty.
RoadRunner on November 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM
I’ve heard of “No more Mr.Nice Guy.” But “Even more Mr.Nice Guy?” That’s Republican for ya.
Dongemaharu on November 16, 2012 at 2:16 PM
QFT!!!
MelonCollie on November 16, 2012 at 2:18 PM
Yeppers, in fact I think all the Dems that vote for higher taxes should put their money where their mouth is. If you want to “help” people through the government, utilize the gift line on your tax return and make a sizable gift to the government. Until they do that personally, stop pushing higher taxes on to other people.
melle1228 on November 16, 2012 at 2:25 PM
Sorry Jonah, but “Compassionate Conservatism” was much more about the soft image than the actual policies. Thats why social conservatism is important: It can soften the hard-edged libertarianish, limited government message. Bush wasnt successful because of his policies. He was able to relate to people that were not of his class, but of a similar faith because he made it a frequent issue.
Valkyriepundit on November 16, 2012 at 2:27 PM
What’s truly amazing is that, apparently, insiders like Goldberg didn’t see this coming. They’ve been completely caught by surprise. It’s sad, but funny to the the whole GOP establishment in absolute turmoil, and they didn’t have a clue, but even sadder is to see how willingly they toss everything they claimed to believe in over the rails to save their sinking ship. It’s not appealing. Just wait and see how many millions of conservatives sit home, in disgust, next election.
DFCtomm on November 16, 2012 at 2:32 PM
Big Government “Conservatism”, just what the doctor ordered.
Wat.
mythicknight on November 16, 2012 at 2:44 PM
In politics, ‘compassion’ is just a way of justifying favoritism: ‘compassion’ for the poor is used to justify hard-heartedness against the rich; for workers and against employers; for teachers and against students, and so on (and also vice versa: progressives and conservatives both play the game).
In fact, all policies have to be judged dispassionately on their merits because all policy proponents work from a similar basis of compassion. We can’t say that Smith’s law is better than Jones’s because Smith has greater compassion: there are few monsters, even in politics.
Or if there are monsters, then proposals especially need to be dispassionately considered.
PersonFromPorlock on November 16, 2012 at 2:48 PM
Compassionate conservatism is good, for winning elections, it’s not all that good for governing.
That said, it probably is worth analyzing Bush’s sales pitches to determine exactly why they were effective. If it really is just a matter of wording, then it could be used just as easily by actual small government conservatives.
WolvenOne on November 16, 2012 at 2:53 PM
None of it matters.
MOST people won’t hear or understand whatever the GOP message is. The media will make sure of it.
The root of our problem is the media and the education indoctrination.
Boycotts and conservatives buying out the media is our only choice left.
And school choice.
GardenGnome on November 16, 2012 at 3:05 PM
Et tu, Jonah?
Nanny-statism has led to the collapse of much of what used to be social networks that were the primary channel of compassion. So the cure is…more nanny-statism?
Then what’s the point of winning elections? Going off the cliff in second gear instead of third (to borrow from Mark Steyn)?
Prager’s argument is the only compelling one, that we must teach Americanism to those who have only heard America-bashing. And quickly.
The implicit idea that Romney lost because he was too conservative is either very silly, or (if true) sufficient cause to conclude that we are completely and utterly f***ed.
ConservativeLA on November 16, 2012 at 3:16 PM
Ummmmmmm…. good?
Bush was rather prescient. Witness exhibit A: Mitt Romney, the severe conservative. He couldn’t give a damn about you 47 percenters, because all you greedy bastards want are a bunch of gifts. Well screw you — so sayeth the Mittster!
Stoic Patriot on November 16, 2012 at 3:24 PM