Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Empty Promise of "Compassionate Conservatism"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Bennet Kelley Donating Member (102 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-22-06 02:02 PM
Original message
The Empty Promise of "Compassionate Conservatism"

The Empty Promise of "Compassionate Conservatism"



Throughout the fall campaign, the Bush administration has been stymied and forced to respond to the “Book of the Week” from the National Intelligence estimate’s findings that the “Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse” to Bob Woodward’s “State of Denial” exposing the administration’s arrogance, mendacity and incompetence in Iraq. Last week was no different, as the release of David Kuo’s “Tempting Faith” revealed that compassionate conservatism is nothing more than a hollow facade for a domestic policy solely focused on maintaining power.

As a candidate, George W. Bush articulated his view that compassionate conservatism required more than simply praising compassionate efforts or calling for volunteerism since “without more support and resources, both private and public, we are asking them to make bricks without straw.” Bush promised more than $8 billion to help social service organizations serve “the least, the last and the lost,” including more than $6 billion for tax incentives to increase private charitable giving and a $200 million annual “Compassion Capital Fund.”

Kuo helped launch the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives; but by 2005, Kuo declared that “these promises remain unfulfilled in spirit and in fact.” The White House political staff had little interest in the program to begin with and quickly discovered that the faith-based initiative “powerfully appealed to both conservative Christians and urban faith leaders — regardless of how much money was being appropriated.” As a result, tax incentives for charitable giving were stripped from the 2001 tax bill in favor of the estate repeal (aka “Paris Hilton tax cut”) even though this will cost charities at least $10 billion annually in lost contributions. Bush also failed to allocate a single penny to the Compassion Capital Fund in his initial budget and by the end of his first term it had received only one-eighth of what had been promised.

Republican Congressman Mark Souder has conceded that the Republicans had no interest in the faith-based initiative beyond using it as a political tool since there is no political advantage to helping the poor “because it’s not our base.” Souder and Kuo demonstrate that compassionate conservatism is not about serving “the least, the last and the lost,” but instead is about serving the interests of the Republican Party by pandering to and placating its evangelical base. The faith-based program is merely a mask that the administration wears to give the appearance of having a domestic policy or even compassion.

This confirms what John DiIulio, the first Director of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, revealed in 2002 when he stated that “there is no precedent in any White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of policy apparatus. What you’ve got is everything — and I mean everything — being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavelli's.”

As one Republican senator privately admitted to President Clinton, “Republicans don’t believe in government very much, but we love power.” This is the fundamental contradiction of Republican governance. As Professor Alan Wolfe writes “Unable to shrink government, but unwilling to improve it, conservatives attempt to split the difference, expanding government for political gain, but always in ways that validate their disregard for the very thing they are expanding. The end result is not just bigger government, but more incompetent government.”

Nothing illustrates all of these points more than the administration’s inept response to Hurricane Katrina. With New Orleans devastated by both Katrina’s force and FEMA’s impotence, the Machiavelli’s focused on the political damage and quickly staged the President‘s photo op speech in Jackson Square where he promised to confront the region’s “persistent poverty” with “bold action.” President Bush has said little about domestic poverty since then and did not even address the issue in his State of the Union Address. When his 2007 budget proposal forced him to choose between his promise of “bold action” and serving his base by making his tax cuts permanent, Bush chose the latter. As a result, the 2007 budget not only includes no new poverty initiatives but dramatically cuts spending on antipoverty programs.

The Katrina betrayal is nothing new as time and time again this administration has placed the interest of a few over the needs of the nation. This is the inevitable result of a governing philosophy dictated by Mayberry Machiavelli's that is devoid of any fundamental principles other than preserving the Republican oligarchy.

In 1999, President Clinton characterized compassionate conservatism as essentially meaning “’I like you, I do ... And I’d like to help. But I just can’t and I feel terrible about it.’” Kuo’s book suggests that Clinton was right, except that there is no evidence that this cynical White House is even capable of remorse. That may change in November.

***

As a post script, I must address Kuo's suggestion that Christians take a two-year break from politics and instead focus on "the things God has commanded us to do – pray, learn, listen to him, and serve a hurting world." Kuo's suggestion is well taken but with poverty rising steadily, the number of Americans without health insurance at record levels and the increasing possibility that a Democratic Congress will battle with President Bush to address these issues -- this definitely is not the time to silence earnest voices such as Kuo's. Instead, it is time that Christians invoked Christianity as a means to advance compassion instead of conservatism, tolerance instead of torture and peace instead of power.

Bennet Kelley is the former national co-chair of the Democratic National Committee’s young professional arm, publisher of BushLies.net and a columnist with the Santa Monica Daily Press. His prior works include "President Bush: The False Prophet of the Christian Right," in Big Bush Lies (RiverWood Books 2004) and Faith-Based Déjà vu, Democratic Underground (March 29, 2005).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-22-06 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. The Republican motto: You're on Your Own.
I've seen it here locally too. They don't want to spend a dime on anything unless it benefits them. So many of them profess to be Christians, yet are clueless as to what the teachings of Jesus are. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Thug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-22-06 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. Compassionate Conservativism is and always will be an oxymoron
Conservatives have never been compassionate. So long as a profit can be made, they say FUCK YOU - GET BACK TO WORK - even if it means child labor. Any time compassion and conservative are uttered in the same breath, we need to start laughing and ask the speaker to define compassion. Then, throw out a few Republican "values" and see how well they fit the definition of compassion. When I went to dictionary.com and looked up compassion, I didn't see torture mentioned as a example. Funny thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-22-06 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. i've always preferred "friendly fascism". much more apt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-22-06 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. "empty promise" is being charitable. it was always a lie, plain and simple
one of their more transparent ones as well, i might add.

it was always obvious to me, and other du'ers, that it was always a SHOW of compassion, never action. they learned from the movie "dave", where the president goes to a photo-op and promises to help and then cuts the budget. in the movie, the kevin kline rebels against doing that, but rove and shrub instead fell in love with that heartless and cynical technique.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Thug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-22-06 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. This is the laughable lie of libertarians and republicans alike...
Edited on Sun Oct-22-06 02:55 PM by Union Thug
Kill welfare and all social spending, and the rich will give copious amounts of money to help the needy out of their collective, philanthropic hearts...

...Just like in Dickens' England.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-22-06 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. Law of the Jungle.
Survival of the fittest. And if you aren't fit, you don't survive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Thug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-22-06 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Social Darwinists who hate Darwin. Funny guys, these conservatives... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bennet Kelley Donating Member (102 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-22-06 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Indeed
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enid602 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-22-06 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
9. Foley
I think Foley showed us what true 'compassionate conservatism' was really about, at least for the 'hot ones.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starfury Donating Member (615 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-22-06 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. No, that's just 'passionate conservatism...' :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
19jet54 Donating Member (737 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
11. They are compassionate, but...
only to other conservatives; otherwise you can go back to Mexico, drown in New Orleans or die in Iraq for their cause?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
12. A WSJ editorial explained how 'CC" was the antidote to Gingrich-
Dole harshness for making inroads with soccer moms and minorities, or at least diminishing the urgency and intensity of their support for Gore and Kerry. Hoodwinking a small percentage of soccer moms, and giving a few hundred thousands of minorities less incentive to surmount ballot-box hurdles Republicans put up, may have made ellections close enough for the GOP to steal with little fear of discovery.

From http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008730 :

"Long viewed with skepticism by many conservatives--for good reason--compassionate conservatism has meant, in general, ...
pressing policies designed to appeal to targeted minorities, and all the while keeping the GOP's conservative base mostly intact.
More specifically, it has meant large tax cuts without any accompanying spending restraint, colossal new education and Medicare programs, and efforts to create an "ownership society" by introducing elements of accountability and choice into existing programs. Compassionate conservatism has also included adherence to social conservatism, though its advocates are reluctant to trumpet this relationship too loudly. Indeed, the Bush team has been unwilling to highlight issues, e.g., affirmative action, that threaten to put sharp edges back on the Republican image.

Its supporters have argued that compassionate conservatism has narrowed the gender gap, pulled up the GOP vote among blacks (by a bit) and Hispanics (by more), and softened the harsh reputation associated with the "Gingrich-Dole Republicans" of the 1990s. In their view, limited government, though perhaps a sufficient doctrine for a minority party, had little to offer Republicans when they became the majority. Compassionate conservatism, however, offered a forward strategy for Republicans who, realistically, could not expect to roll back big government very far, if at all. Finally, while limited government conservatism delivered some smashing successes for Republicans at the presidential level in the 1980s and in Congress in 1994, it never could have achieved unified Republican control of government (so the administration argues) in the way compassionate conservatism did in 2002 and 2004.

Whatever the flaws of this analysis--and there are many--Republicans cannot avoid the fact that compassionate conservatism was devised as a response to real strategic dilemmas. Republicans needed, and need still, a positive agenda as a governing party, a way to appeal to women and Hispanics, and an image that is less severe than the one that had emerged from the 1990s."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:18 AM
Response to Original message
13. Understanding Bushspeak
I came to the conclusion that whatever Bush says he really means the opposite. Compassionate Conservative means whack the poor and everything for the rich. Uniter not Divider means polarization. Bringing honesty and dignity to the White House means corruption and cronyism. So, whatever he declares just think in terms of the opposite.
So, while he is touting a republican win in two weeks he really means "I'm screwed!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpeale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
14. State of denial
I started reading state of denial this past weekend. I am pissed off. The only thing Bob Woodward is in a State of Denial about is his complicity in everything that has happened since election 2000. The guy is a dirtbag of the first order & doesn't deserve to be believed about ANYTHING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
15. The mendacity and plain badness of this administration is so
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 12:44 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
overwhelming in its scale, it's good see what has became routine mendacity, malfeasance and economic oppression still being exposed, itemised and laid out for the public record. Would that it were still so in the UK!

It would be so easy to throw your hands up in the air and say, heck where do you start with those people? What's the point? Black is white, up is down, right is wrong, wrong is right to them. In the eyes of the administration, it seems, no entry relating to white-collar crime at the highest levels exists any longer in the national lexicon, - least of all in relation to their own conduct in government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughttheater Donating Member (71 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
16. They Hate The Sin, Not The Sinner...Yea Right!
If anyone has any doubt as to the compassion of the vast majority of religious conservatives, take a look at how they view homosexuality...look no further than Secretary of State Rice's swearing in of Mark Dybal, a gay man, as U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator...at which Dybal's partner held the Bible for the ceremony.

It’s important to note just what evangelicals are actually opposing. The actions by Secretary of State Rice were not an endorsement of gay marriage and she was merely conducting the duties of her position...yet the event was roundly criticized. Further, Dybal was being appointed to a position with clear relevance to the gay community yet it still angered a number of evangelicals. We hear over and over again that evangelicals aren't opposed to gays having equal rights so long as they aren't allowed to marry...but if one looks at the reaction to this incident, it is clear that this evangelical rhetoric is meant to disguise their actual agenda...the full rejection of the gay lifestyle through the imposition of legislation that is punitive towards gays. If having a gay man's partner hold the Bible during a swearing in session is unacceptable, just what rights do evangelical believe gays deserve? If this is indicative of compassionate conservatism, I would hate to witness the absence of compassion.

Read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC