dys, You got it backwards my friend. Actually, it's reached a new high!
c.i.
c.i.
You are right a new height of hypocrisy
George W. Bush is notorious for saying one thing and doing another. It is far more important to practice what we preach. Instead of compassion for the wealthy he might show more compassion for the homeless and those who unable to find jobs due to the worsening economy and Corporate greed.
marvan, With people like us, there is still hope for this world.
c.i.
Oh ye of little faith. Compassion is in the eye of the beholder.
And we shall overcome. At least, I hope so before it's too late.
au, All you need is a good massage to cure what ails you.
c.i.
c.i.
Don't worry Bush will massage us all.
compassionate conservatism
Unfortunately, "compassionate conservatism" is worse than a mere slogan; it is an oxymoron.
JLN, Only a "moron" believes it. c.i.
The look of compassionate conservative can be seen in the New York Times, Sunday 5 Decemeber 2003. Link below. When you get to the page, look for a box on the right that says "multimedia." Click "graphics, republicans to watch."
They all look like members of the same club. No diversity. It's very easy to talk about compassion when you're not faced with the realities that demand it of you.
Look upon the mighty, but I won't take it to despair, because I remember Gingrich.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/politics/05CONG.html?pagewanted=2
Yeah - and dumped another wife, and has been brought in by Bush to sit on something or other. But he has lost weight.
compassion is as compassion does
Pdiddie - I don't believe "compassionate conservatism" is something new, I simply think Bush has tried to help people see that "compassion" has for many years largely been defined by the left, and that sometimes the policies conservatives advocate may be more compassionate than those advocated by liberals.
Before you can really judge whether or not a person's actions are compassionate, you need to define "compassion". It seems to me that most liberals (and I'm oversimplifying here) gauge a politician's "compassion" based his or her intent and on whether he or she takes action, most often measured by how many dollars he or she throws at programs intended to help those perceived to be in need.
The problem I see with this definition of "compassion" is that it deals only with the action and its intent, and does not take results into account. Simply taking substantive action, measured in tax dollars spent, with the intent of solving or alleviating the "problem", is considered compassionate. Whether the action results in an improvement in the problem, a reduction in the number of people suffering from the problem, or a reduction in the level to which one person suffers seems never to be considered.
Thus, politicians advocating increased spending on programs that have shown no evidence of alleviating or solving the problems they were created to alleviate or solve are called, "compassionate", while those who question or block the increase are called callous or uncaring.
Now, if liberals were to define "compassion" based on the end result of action, I think it would greatly alter their view of what is compassionate and what is uncaring. Increasing funding for a program that has failed to achieve its stated goals might then not be called "compassion". Likewise ending a program that has achieved only marginal results so that funds are available to achieve greater results elsewhere could be seen as "compassionate", if you are willing to look beyond the simplistic sound-byte mentality with which such things are normally considered.
The problem I have with the notion of "compassionate conservatism" is that this new term seems to suggest that conservatism was not previously compassionate. Conservatives were not being uncaring when they pushed for welfare reform, they were being compassionate. They saw that far too many people were trapped in a cycle of dependence on the government, and acted to implement changes that broke that cycle. Welfare reform--which Clinton twice vetoed, was so successful that by the end of his term Clinton listed it as one of his great achievements.
Lastly, it's important to understand that there are a lot of well-intentioned social programs promoted by liberals against which conservatives vote not because they think the action should not be taken, but because they believe the Constitution does not empower the federal government to act in that arena. When a Republican votes against a program intended to help the poor, it doesn't mean he or she thinks the poor shouldn't be helped, it means that he or she doesn't think the federal government should help the poor, or that the proposed program is not an efficient or effective solution.
Neither party has a monopoly on compassion. The difference between conservatives and liberals isn't whether they care, but what they think should be done and by whom. Conservative politicians give far more money to charity than liberals. I don't think this means conservatives care more, I think it indicates that liberal politicians believe they best help those in need by using our tax dollars rather than their own money. Ignoring Constitutional issues for the moment, that's a perfectly valid point of view. Which means that both parties have compassionate people, and that we should be discussing how best to be compassionate, rather than whether party A or party B has compassion.
I'm following your debate points down to the last paragraph wherein you state that conservative politicians give far more money to charities than liberal politicians. Where exactly are these statistics derived from?
Good question LW. I also challenge that statement. c.i.
