When George W. Bush first ran for president back in 2000, he used the phrase “compassionate conservatism” as a label for his ideas. I daresay if he were to run in 2012, his fellow Republicans would snuff out his campaign for using the word “compassionate.” Put simply, compassion is out of style with Republicans.
Consider the rather morally irresponsible displays of what is at best indifference and at worst malevolence that have come to us from the Right:
According to a Sept. 22 Huffington Post article, at a republican presidential candidate debate, a crowd audibly booed a gay soldier when questioning candidate Rick Santorum about his views on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Santorum went on to say that with him at the helm, DADT would be re-instituted.
A Sept. 13 CNN article details how candidate Rick Perry supports “in-state tuition rates and financial aid to the children of illegal immigrants.” Interestingly, he noted that anyone who didn’t support these measures has “no heart.” By this measure, his fellow-Republicans have “no heart,” particularly as Perry went on to receive scathing criticism from Romney, Bachmann and other candidates.
As a Sept. 13 LA Times article says Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul was asked a hypothetical question about a healthy thirty-year-old man who decided he didn’t need health insurance.
Unfortunate circumstances befall him and he now faces death, should he die since he can’t afford the resulting bills? Ron Paul insisted the man should reap the consequences of his “choices” but that charities would step in to prevent death. Yet the presumably conservative mob unabashedly and repeatedly shouted, “Yes!”
All of these examples are symptoms of a broader movement: the shift of “conservatism” or at least the G.O.P. toward harsher social and political measures. When perusing the speeches of Republicans, it certainly appears to be a competition between them as to who can be the most “hardline” on gay marriage, health insurance, immigration and a wide array of issues.
Unfortunately, these Republicans fail to understand that “hardline” doesn’t equal correct. Actually, and more appropriately, it doesn’t mean “best for Americans.”
In a brilliant Sept. 15 New York Times Op-Ed, prominent economist Paul Krugman analyzed this “deeply radical movement, one that is hostile to the kind of society we’ve had for the past three generations.” He notes that in the past, conservatives have generally acknowledged a government safety net on humanitarian grounds. Now it is the goal of Republicans to rip apart that safety net.
After all, conservatives and high-profile Republicans have advocated more and more severe cuts in government spending. These cuts include education programs, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and unemployment insurance.
What is perhaps most worrisome about the radical shift in conservatism is its lack of differentiating between the improvident and the unfortunate. The implication of the broad, sweeping moves by Republicans: those that now find themselves in debt or financial troubles are irresponsible, lazy and shortsighted.
I refer back to the hypothetical that candidate Ron Paul was asked about with the man who chose to not get health insurance. It seems he and many of his peers think that imaginary man is the norm. I’m sorry, but that simply isn’t the case. As Krugman pointed out in his aforementioned piece, most uninsured Americans cannot afford it or are refused coverage due to chronic conditions.
All of this observation is coincided by the backdrop of increasingly terrible statistics indicating Americans are continuing to struggle. I highly encourage self-avowed conservatives and liberals alike to contemplate what is a “choice” for the average American – more to the point, for the average human being. Of course, the corollary then becomes whether the government can/should help to ease societal problems like lack of health care, increasing rates of poverty, diminishing quality of educations and so on.
We must assess where we think compassion fits into our politics. I daresay with their abuse of gay marriage, immigration, social programs, etc., the shift in Republican politics resoundingly refutes any place for compassion and moral responsibility. Under these conditions, I miss George W. Bush since he would urge us to believe in his “compassionate conservatism.” At the very least, it’s nominally compassionate, which is barely better than what is currently being offered by the Right.
