Is "compassionate conservatism" a slogan and nothing more?

Roger - Thanks, but in this case I was offering something as fact, and I was unable to locate a supporting citation. (Yikes!)

LW - I write for a living, so it was nice to see you accept my little ribbing about your gaff with such aplomb. I must however test your good humor once more by pointing out that my comment was not an accusation, it was an assertion. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

It's the read-between-the-lines inference that liberals are hypocrites. I think there's enough of that to go around in Washington along with the daily serving of plates of crow that are silently shuffled behind the closet door. After what happened to Trent Lott (although he plate of crow with a giant helping of chocolate syrup and whipped cream), I think politicians will be even more reluctant to admit they are wrong. Especially if it's a half-hearted apology filled with declarations that simply left me incredulous (oh, there's that word again!) I can't imagine in my wildest dreams of someone like Bush or Cheney admitting that they made mistakes. Bush only said the the drunk driving revelation that he was sorry his daughters now knew about it as he was hoping he could be an example to them. Is my memory unclear on this?

No, as I said before, even if it were true that the plutocrats in the government were shown to give more to charities than the social program minded liberals, it would only show that they don't have as much money to give to charities. Big pooh! It could just as easily be the other way around but I'm sure those statistics aren't easy to come by even if they are public record.

0 Replies

Accusation, assertion -- in the written word it's difficult to discern because of the lack of a tone of voice. In it's context, I read it as an accusation. As an unsubstantiated assertion, I think we've all decided it's time to go past this. I've seen some accusatory statements made on this forum that are on the borderline of being inflammatory but so far they've been given a pass. I think it's because in a generality nobody should take it personally unless they want to step forward and volunteer by going on the defensive. We all know from coming from "that other forum" what parameters are acceptable and have tried to stay inside the envelope. Push the envelope out too far and it often explodes, producing a lot of hot air.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

It's the read-between-the-lines inference that liberals are hypocrites.

Ah, but you can't seriously hold me accountable for what you choose to infer from "between the lines". I wrote what I meant and it was not intended as you claim to have taken it. In fact, I went so far as to state that I believe liberals view their role as helping the needy by spending tax dollars, and wrote that it was a perfectly valid point of view, though one with which I disagree.

If you read what I wrote, in context, and try not to infer some other meaning than that which the words have as written, you will see I was trying to identify the difference in how liberals and conservatives view compassion. I think it's clear I was not holding one or the other up as more compassionate. If you inferred that, you brought the meaning with you, because it was not in what I wrote.

Here again, is what I wrote, including the contested and retracted statement regarding relative levels of personal charitable giving:

Quote:

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.

0 Replies

Your comments makes better sense for your position without the "Conservative politicians give far more money than liberals," which we have established cannot be substantiated.

As I said, I read what I thought was a perfectly logical conclusion that liberal politicians are hypocrites for wanting everyone to be taxed and the monies used for social purposes because they personally contribute less. If that was the wrong conclusion and I read something into it you didn't intend, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I can agree that government must come up with the best way to be compassionate in providing a safety net -- I just don't agree that they are currently doing anything of substance to change anything. Thus, I am still not convince that "compassionate conservative" is anymore than buzz.

0 Replies

politics
TrespassersWill, if "liberals" intend a program to provide succor or at least relief, and their efforts fail for unforseen reasons, their gesture and intention were "compassionate". If "conservatives" want to withhold succor and relief because they anticipate that it might not work, that sounds to me like a rationalization for hard heartedness. And you are calling it compassionate conservativism? What hogwash and sophistry.

0 Replies

Lw - really? About Simon, I mean? Now that's interesting.

I once looked up both Clinton and Bush to see what each had given - not a specific list, but in general. I believe the Clintons tithed, and the Bush contributions were listed as under 2%. But I cannot give you specific source - only that I looked this up on google a while back under some general question.

I was also interested in seeing that the only foundation, or anything resembling that, that the Bush family had established or sponsored was a Barbara Bush library, and funds were solicited. This bit of info I gathered when I was searching for foundations established by the Rockefellers, Roosevelts, etc.

0 Replies

I've been away for a couple of days, but feel confident in just jumping right in here.

Twain, of course, would likely describe the phrase compassionate conservatism as a 'compound fracture of fact'.

That the phrase is a slogan derived from a set of polling questions asking "What is the worst thing about Republicans?" or some such, seems as clear and certain as we might hope for in a truth claim.

But tresspasser's notion that we ought to be analyzing programs/strategies and their outcomes, rather than doing the Hatfield/McCoy thing sounds pretty good to me.

0 Replies

compassion
Blatham, think further about Trespasser's thesis about compassion as definable only by its effects. If a conservative argues to discontinue OR MODIFY a "compassionate" program because it is not working, not achieving its desired (or any desirable) results, Trespasser is right. But if Trespasser is arguing that conservatives are rejecting programs--out of hand--without giving them a chance, WITHOUT TESTING them for efficacy, then he's wrong. And liberals who promote programs even while they are demonstrably ineffective are also wrong. But they are behaving compassionately when they either try to modify the programs so that they will work or strive to construct other programs that MAY work. But they will not--as so many "compassionate" conservatives will--simply ignore the problem as NOT GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS. By the way, this government they rant against is the body of society's elected representatives, not some alien force whose only legitimate function is to promote the interests of corporate america and protect property rights.

0 Replies

Re: politics

JLNobody wrote:

TrespassersWill, if "liberals" intend a program to provide succor or at least relief, and their efforts fail for unforseen reasons, their gesture and intention were "compassionate". If "conservatives" want to withhold succor and relief because they anticipate that it might not work, that sounds to me like a rationalization for hard heartedness. And you are calling it compassionate conservativism? What hogwash and sophistry.

Assume we're debating additional funds for a well-intentioned program that has failed as you describe above. Is it "compassionate" in your view to throw more money and resources into something that has been shown to not work, or more compassionate to oppose it so that those resources can be used elsewhere?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

But tresspasser's notion that we ought to be analyzing programs/strategies and their outcomes, rather than doing the Hatfield/McCoy thing sounds pretty good to me.

Why thank you.

0 Replies

incredible
LW, I find it incredible that you would risk your credibility by using the word, incredulous, again.

I was once corrected by a professor for using "forcefully" instead of "forcibly." I knew better, as you do, but was careless. This was regarding a formal essay. Here, where we must wright fast and often off the top of our heads, such errors must be expected and ignored.
I see them all the time here and in abuzz, but I've never seen them corrected. So, Trespasser, I believe your "correction" was not so benign--it was an accusation, not a neutral assertion.
P.s. Did my "wright" excite you?

0 Replies

It all depends on what you're talking about being wasteful in throwing money at a program. How much money's been wasted on corporate welfare, on failing military weaponry projects, and not to mention throwing money into funding religion which isn't proven to be any more than a theory? This is another discussion in progress, of course. I don't believe that compassion has been as dominate a theme in the President and his administration's actions as it was a propaganda device in the campaign. That's politics and in this case, it's on a sensitive subject that shouldn't really be used to gain votes -- the end result being a distinct lack of sincerity. It's the bait and switch technique at work. It's used by both sides but the conservatives fancy themselves to be better salespeople and, in fact, use the hard sell when it comes down to brass tacks.

0 Replies

Due to an event that occurs in the future, the previous contents of this post have been replaced with some light music, deemed more suitable to the discussion than were the previous contents.

(Hmmm-hmmm-hmmm, hmmm-hmmm, hmmm-hmmm, hmmm-hmmm, hmmm-hmmm, hmmm-hmmm, hmmm-hmmm...)

0 Replies

LW - Wasteful spending on other programs does not change what I wrote. It is not compassionate to do the wrong thing for the right reason. It is not compassionate to make people more dependent rather than less.

I had hoped we could simply agree that it's absurd to think that either party has a monopoly on compassion, but sadly even that seems to much to expect.

0 Replies

It is not compassionate to broadcast that you are compassionate and then have virtually nothing to show for it. We're talking about politicians here, not John Q. Public, be he conservative or liberal or a combination of both on different issues. I still prefer progressive and regressive. What little this adminstration has addressed which could even be characterized as compassionate has been regressive. The effort to create more ties to religions is regressive, not progressive. The throwing money at something is a no starter as that is what our legislators are best at doing even when they manage to make it appear that they are saving money. Mark Twain recognized this and on several occasions recommended that one cover their head when the legislators were in session. Provide for the general welfare means exactly what it says.

0 Replies

politics
Trespasser, I do apologize for my "animus." That is not my usual demeanor, as I'm sure most people here will affirm. But, frankly, you've rubbed me the wrong way (that's no excuse for my aggression perhaps) in part because of the character of your political values (but that's my problem, I know) and in part for what I perceive as your tone of passive aggression.
But I do appreciate your response and will continue to try to maintain the civility typical of this forum.

0 Replies

LW, I agree with you to a certain degree. My criticism of GW's initiative to fund religious based social services is that those services will be concentrated to 'that' religion's members. It will not benefit the 'general welfare' of all Americans. That doesn't surprise me too much, though, because GW is very good at seeing only his myopic vision of what is "compasionate." The GOP must learn to 1) eliminate discrimination against blacks, 2) quit helping only the wealthy, 3) concentrate more on America's needs, and 4) quit using Iraq as their insurance for the 2004 elections. c.i.

0 Replies

Good points, c.i. The priorities have been half hearted in the direction of the general welfare. What do you call tax cuts but throwing money at a problem? It still has not been proven that this is anything more than a placebo rather than a panacea like they would have you believe. The compassion being shown is more like to shore (sic) up the yacht market than the small appliance industry (how many toasters can a rich person buy?)

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

It is not compassionate to broadcast that you are compassionate and then have virtually nothing to show for it.

I completely agree. The trouble is, I would aim that statement predominantly at liberals and Democrats, while you level it at conservatives and Republicans, which was my point.

There's no use in discussing who is compassionate and who is not. There is a lot of value in discussing which programs or ideas might help or solve this or that problem, and which might not. That such discussions so often devolve into a debate over whether A or B "cares enough" is a waste of time. I frankly think it's a tactic used to short-circuit a debate that is not desired by one side, but that's just my opinion.

Look at the issue of arsenic in drinking water. Clinton signed an order to lower the allowable limit just before Bush took over. When Bush chose not to implement the new limit, the debate that ensued sadly had very little to do with the merits of the proposed limit, the science behind it, etc.. What we heard almost exclusively was that Bush wanted to poison children and didn't care about clean, safe water.

Now, are we as citizens better served by that debate or by the one that never occurred?

0 Replies

Is "compassionate conservatism" a slogan and nothing more?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know