The Lonesome Death of Compassionate Conservatism

It didn't last very long and, to be honest, it never was quite as robust as its supporters claimed it was. There was no official obituary, no eulogies rendered, no elegies written, no Requiem Mass held, and no panegyric was delivered on television or to a joint session of Congress. In the end, "compassionate conservative" passed with a whimper, not a bang.

In the late nineties, and in the early part of this century, "compassionate conservatism" became a bellwether term for conservatives. Some on the right criticized the use of the phrase, arguing that conservatism is by its very nature compassionate and therefore there was no need to put any modifier in front of it. Others - especially those running the presidential campaign of George W. Bush -- saw the phrase as political gold.

While the origin of "compassionate conservatism" is still in question - some say it was longtime conservative advisor Doug Wead who coined the term, others credit Marvin Olasky with, if not coming up with it, at least popularizing it - there is no doubt that it softened the public's perception of modern day conservatism. That softening, along with the much bigger boost given Bush by the U.S. Supreme Court -- helped paved the way for his entrance to the White House in 2000.

Even at the height of its usage, "compassionate conservatism" wasn't ever really about a heck of a lot of compassion. It was more about branding and the selling of a presidential candidate.

At the heart of Team Bush-Olasky's argument was an anti-government animus that maintained that the federal government and state governments should play less of a role in supporting social safety net programs, and instead, that role should shift to local charities and faith-based organizations.

While there has been no grand funeral, no flags at half-mast, no wake and no tear-filled remembrances, consider compassionate conservatism dead and buried. Practically non-existent since the election of Barack Obama and the rise of the Tea Party, some final nails in the compassionate conservatism coffin may have been delivered during two recent Republican Party presidential debates.

The issues in question were the death penalty and health care.

Although many in this country continue to support the death penalty, a discussion of it rarely yields hoots and hollers from either side. However, that changed during the September 7 presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California.

As the editors of The New Republic recently pointed out:

"It was an ugly moment ... when the discussion turned to the death penalty. 'Governor Perry, a question about Texas,' moderator Brian Williams began. 'Your state has executed two-hundred thirty-four death-row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times.' Suddenly, Williams was interrupted by an outburst of applause and cheers from the audience. The point being made by the Republican spectators could not have been clearer: The death penalty was not just a policy they favored. It was something to celebrate. And Rick Perry's answer to the question was about as thoughtful as the audience's reaction. 'I've never struggled with that at all,' he said-a boast that was especially unsettling because Texas almost certainly executed an innocent man, Cameron Todd Willingham, on Perry's watch."

Williams asked Perry why the audience applauded when he'd mentioned the 234 executions. "I think Americans understand justice," Perry said.

As Financial Times columnist Jurek Martin recently observed,

"Compassionate conservatism, W's 2000 campaign slogan, is definitely not his [Perry's] style, because it has gone out of style among Republicans. He has no problem calling social security a Ponzi scheme, evolution an unproven theory and President Barack Obama a liar because that is the lingua franca of the rugged individualist of today."

At the CNN-Tea Party Express September 12 debate in Tampa, Florida, Wolf Blitzer posed a hypothetical question about health care to Ron Paul, an obstetrician and Texas congressman:

Wolf Blitzer: "You're a physician, Ron Paul. So you're a doctor, you know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question. A healthy, 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, 'you know what, I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance, because I'm healthy. I don't need it.' But you know, something terrible happens. All of a sudden, he needs it. Who's going to pay for it if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?"

Ron Paul: "In a society [where] you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him."

Blitzer: "But what do you want?"

Paul: "What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would [be to] have a major medical policy but not be forced -"

Blitzer: "But he doesn't have it. He doesn't have it and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?"

Paul: "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody -"

Blitzer: "But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?"

Paul: "No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio , and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals."

Reports vary on what happened after Paul answered "No." While it is clear that someone in the audience yelled out a hearty "yes" as an answer to Blitzer's "are you saying that society should just let him die?" And while some may have cheered, it was the response of only a few. Mostly the audience remained silent.

Perhaps even more chilling than the hoo-ha over "the die or not die" hypothetical was Paul's answer to America's health care crisis: "... we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it."

It is clear that "compassionate conservatism' has outlived its usefulness for Republican Party candidates. The new catchphrase? "Cutthroat Conservatism."

ENDS

© Scoop Media