Compassionate Conservatism: Huh?

So, I’m drinking my coffee this morning, perusing the Washington Post and I arrive at the op-ed page. At the bottom of page A17 is an article titled, “The Strength of Compassionate Conservatism.” Nice, I thought, a bit of humor on an otherwise turgid piece of newsprint.

I was mistaken.

Columnist Michael Gerson decided to play the straight man to the rest of the thinking world when making his case for the proposition that the term is “[f]ar from being a vague, weepy tenderness, . . . [it] has a rigorous definition. It teaches that the pursuit of the common good is a moral goal. It asserts that this goal is best achieved through strong families, volunteer groups and communities that all deserve legal deference and respect.”

Okay, that’s a nice definition of . . . something. Somehow, I don’t think that George W. Bush’s speechwriters had that in mind when they crafted his speech in which he tossed out this infamous phrase early in his Presidency.

Gerson launches his paean on the subject by describing an argument that has been brewing between him and John Sullivan at the National Review about Gerson’s previous comments on this subject. “O’Sullivan’s main arguments come down to these: The phrase compassionate conservatism is redundant, because “relieving poverty and improving the condition of the people have been important strands of every conservatism since Edmund Burke.”"

Not being a follower of these two conservative pundits, I have not followed this debate and, quite frankly, have no interest in doing so. What caught my attention is the passing agreement that the term, “Compassionate Conservatism” is redundant.

Apparently, we exist in different worlds. On my planet, compassionate conservatism is known as an oxymoron, that is, a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms. Apparently in Gerson’s world, conservatives care about the disenfranchised, the elderly, the environment and so on. I might actually consider taking a vacation there just to see what was going on.

There are several problems with this reasoning, not the least of which are the underlying “facts” that Mr. Gerson uses to support his thinking here.

First, the term, as we have observed over the last 8 years, is a fabrication intended to placate true believers and neutralize opponents through the use of truth-defying linguistic shortcuts. There is no such beast as the compassionate conservative except in Karl Rove’s dark soul.

Examples that Gerson cite include the Medicare drug benefit extended to seniors, the No Child Left Behind Act established to help black children and faith-based initiatives funded by the ideologues within the executive branch. Any suggestion that these events reflect a conservative sensitivity to the people who were short changed by these policies is a perversion of history and logic.

Second, it boggles my mind to think that Gerson can write this with any conviction. The stink hasn’t left the bathroom stall of the Bush presidency and he asserts that “[i]nstead of being a “sentiment,” it (compassionate conservatism) is a conviction: that government can be a noble enterprise when it applies creative conservative and free-market ideas to the task of helping those in need.”

Find me a plunger.

All scatological comparisons aside, it is amazing to me that any thinking conservative can make such claims in light of the harm inflicted on our society by George W. Bush and his followers. If a conservative view exists that extends anything of substance but a one-finger salute to the majority of the American people, I would be interested in hearing about it. In practice, compassionate conservatism has been a mean spirit wrapped in a red, white and blue slogan and used as a baseball bat in the war against humanity.

I believe that there is a place for honest dialogue between competing ideologies. However, with the hostile rhetoric and even more hostile actions that mark the last decade of conservative hysteria, it’s now time for all compassionate conservatives who really believe what they espouse to step up.

Stumble It!