Is "compassionate conservatism" a slogan and nothing more?

That's my point -- that Karl Rove and others saw the apparent edge liberals seemed to have on this elusive compassion issue. Whether you consider it real or not, they chose to believe it was real and countered with the "compassionate conservative" sound bite. Are there any liberals countering with "compassionate liberal?" No, because that's the perception of the right minded intellectuals and it's in error. Compassion was what Lyndon Johnson did when he signed the Civil Rights Bill, realizing that was the end of the Democratic South. Not my favorite President, for sure, but will Dubya ever do anything this striking and powerful, proving that "compassionate conservative" is not just a brand name, a meaningless slogan? Just as meaningless as "liberal conservative?"
This "me too" attitude of both sides has exacerbated all the ill effects of a two party system.

JL

You point is well taken. The social legislation and programs which arose as remedies for the sort of working conditions that led to the Triangle Shirtwaist Building fire or out of the human misery evident during the depression seem to me a proper and necessary government restraint on some tendencies we humans have to be other than altruistic.

Yet there clealy seem to be other not uncommon human tendencies towards, for example, letting the other fellow do the hard lifting. Thus, as usual, both viewpoints have merit. The point of balance is at issue and that isn't an easy one. John Rawls, in an essay written some years after 'A Theory of Justice' revealed that the purpose of his project was to bridge these two traditional oppositions.

I, like yourself and Rawls wish to err on the side of compassionate government programs, but we need to make a more compelling case regarding consequences than we have made.

It is true that part of what we fight against is a conservative or libertarian notion (commonly understood, it seems, as some variety of axiom) that government ought to be pared down to a bare and pristine minium. It's not a notion I share. But it is incumbent upon me to make my case. It is, conversely, incumbent upon them to make theirs. UNfortunately, I am pathetically under-educated in the history and results of social programs.

The failure of the Federal housing projects of the late 60's and early 70's is the program that has been dredged up most often. Get over it -- the failed Saving and Loans far outdraws that loss for the taxpayers. We didn't seem to learn much from that either.
I suppose there's some way to blame that on liberals -- it was social program, after all, to keep all those bankers in their upper class housing!

JL - Written like a gentleman. You are neither the first nor likely to be the last person I rub the wrong way. Please try to assume that I mean what I write, and wherever one might infer something negative I hope you'll give me the benefit of the doubt and assume I meant it the most positive way.

I for my part will try as best I can to avoid writing things that leave me open to be too easily taken the wrong way.

Lastly, I will concede that I am a sarcastic person by nature, and love to joke with people. This sometimes creeps out when I do not intend it to and can easily be taken for being a prick rather than just attempting to share a chuckle with someone. I'm generally only prickly when provoked, and even then try to take the higher road when I can.

Excellently put, though I would add one word: federal.

I am not necessarily opposed to government undertaking social programs. I am however opposed to the federal government undertaking social programs which appear--quite clearly--to me to be outside the powers granted them by our Constitution.

And one of the wonderful things about that document is that it has an amendment process built into it, so that if the will of most people in this country is that the federal government should be undertaking social programs, we can amend the Constitution to empower the federal government in that capacity.

But when we simply allow our government to ignore the Constitution where it suits us, we cede to them the power to ignore it when it does not.

And that, in my mind, is a very bad thing.

I'm curious -- what social programs are not Constitutional and if so, why hasn't this made it's way into the courts and up to the USSC? Sounds to me like there's a lot of politicians spouting off about social programs but are too wimpy to test it in the courts. I'm certain if I perused the Judicial Watch website, I might find some lawsuits associated with social programs. Or, maybe not.
You are right that the writers of the Constitution did not expect it was written in stone -- the Federal Papers and other writings by these fine gentlemen (undoubtedly written when they were sober) plainly expouse the idea that the document would be radically different in no less than a hundred years. Didn't happen. For some reason, what they feared happened -- the rabble got a foothold in the government and decided to sit on their hands. It's remarkable to me how few great men have been President. It's remarkable to me with all the mediocre leaders we've had that we've survived. No man is an island but I think our isolation from the rest of the world really worked for over one hundred and fifty years. There's four faces on Mt. Rushmore and that's all there should be.

(There is a rather large rock at Pismo Beach that's reserved for a few others).

That's a very good question, but I think it begs the creation of a new discussion. Please create it, and then we can have at it.

Tw

Based upon that statement I would ask what do you think of Bush's religious initiatives. Do they satisfy or violate the constitution.

au - I believe Bush's faith-based initiative, constituting as it does federal funding of social programs, is unconstitutional.

LW
I will ask a followup question if you don't mind. In your opinion should the federal government fund any social programs and if so which or what generic type.

Yes, the federal government should fund social programs. Head Start I totally endorse -- all those all welfare should be assisted in getting back to work and the playing field of opportunity has to have some leveling. We are the "land of opportunity" but we can't always rely on private enterprise doing the best job. There concern is more the bottom line than for the welfare of the employees (or potential employees). There there are those that are unemployable for one reason or another and if it's not something they are able to change, there has to be social programs to take care of them. To sit back and think that it will all take care of itself within the mechanics of a capitalist system is a fantasy. I don't see social programs as a give away if they are being administered and managed well. There hangs the contention of the conservative don't trust government mantra. Certainly, if a social program is determine to be ineffective, something has to change. You rarely see facts and figures as to what programs are not working and why, but you do hear a lot of rhetoric from both sides. Eventually a politician is unmasked who claims to be compassionate and wants to bring the poorest of our society up into a higher living standard but is unable to because he's too busy paying off his wealthy supporters.

I'll say one thing positive about Bush -- he did get the unemployment bill to his desk and signed it today (although there are those who will say it should have been foreseen and addressed much sooner). The tax relief bill may be a different story.

Well, LW, the last congresss was the most unproductive for many decades. Let's see what happens with the GOP control of congress. c.i.

'Provide for the common welfare' seems overly broad and open to the widest possible interpretation, but there it is.

Article I, Section 8, US Constitution "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. . . ."

roger, They must've had one thousand lawyers to write that one sentence. c.i.

They were much more efficient back then, c.i., which is probably why it never dawned on them how many future laywers would pry out a living from such loose wording.

trespassers will

This question was meant for you not Lightwizard however, the answer was clear when you posted that you were a libertarian.

I wish that Bush would stop reviving this topic:

In a reversal, the Bush administration has ruled that managed care organizations can limit and restrict coverage of emergency services for poor people on Medicaid.

The new policy, disclosed in a recent letter to state Medicaid directors, appears to roll back standards established in a 1997 law and in rules issued by the Clinton administration in January 2001 and by the Bush administration itself in June 2002.

Under the 1997 law, states can require Medicaid recipients to enroll in health maintenance organizations or other types of managed care. But certain safeguards for patients were built into that law. Congress, for example, stipulated that managed care organizations had to provide coverage for Medicaid patients in any situation that a "prudent layperson" would regard as an emergency.

Now the Bush administration has decided that states can place certain limits on coverage of emergency services "to facilitate more appropriate use of preventive care and primary care," the letter said.

White House Allows Limits on Emergency Coverage

"I'm sorry, but you're just TOO POOR to get any more emergency medical treatment."

White House Allows Limits on Emergency Coverage


The Bush administration has not mandated any cuts, it has allowed states more control over their health care budgets during a time when most if not all states have serious budget crises.

What is being discussed here is how many times a person on medicaid can go to an emergency room in a year. Everyone knows emergency rooms are overutilized, and that most of the visits people are making are for things that should have been handled by making an appointment with a doctor. That more appropriate option is still available, and--if states choose to institute a limit on ER visits--will be used more in the future, reducing the strain on ERs and the costs of delivering medical care to those in need, making it possible to treat more people with the limited resources available to do so.

Emergency rooms are not going to begin turning away legitimate life-threatening emergencies no matter what the law is, and they are more likely to be able to handle real, life-threatening emergencies in a timely and effective manner if they are not overburdened with people complaining of sprained ankles and the common cold.

And referring back to the topic; is it more "compassionate" to allow people unfettered access to emergency rooms, or to free up emergency rooms to focus on emergencies?

Did you hear where the Bush Administration is talking about suspending medical benefits for those "high income" veterans, who make $38,000 and up, a year?


The man has no shame.