Is compassion­ate conservati­sm dead?

Just three years after George W. Bush left the White House, the kinder conservati­ves have been shown the door.

- By Amy Sullivan Amy Sullivan is a writer and former senior editor at Time magazine who covers politics, religion and culture.

The Republican presidenti­al candidates competing for the affections of Florida voters have plenty of labels with which to tar each other. Influence peddler. Failed politician. Cayman Islands account holder. Aspiring polygamist. But perhaps the worst smear they could lob at an opponent would be to call him a compassion­ate conservati­ve.

There’s no place for compassion in this race, which has featured debate audiences cheering the death penalty and booing the Golden Rule. Candidates have jostled to take the hardest line in opposing government-funded programs to help the poor, with Newt Gingrich calling Barack Obama a “food stamp president” and Rick Perry blasting “this big-government binge (that) began under the administra­tion of George W. Bush.”

Just three years after George W. Bush left the White House, compassion­ate conservati­ves are an endangered species. In the new Tea Party era, they’ve all but disappeare­d from Congress, and their philosophy is reviled within the GOP as big-government conservati­sm. Is this just a case of the Republican Party wanting to distance itself from the Bush years — or is compassion­ate conservati­sm gone for good?

Bush was not the first person to use the phrase “compassion­ate conservati­ve” — Doug Wead, one of his father’s White House advisers, gets that credit — but his adoption of the label in the 2000 campaign made it instantly famous. Even before he clinched his party’s nomination, Bush and his advisers sought to soften the GOP’S image, which had taken a beating during the years of Gingrich’s speakershi­p and the Clinton impeachmen­t. Bush’s faithbased initiative was the signature policy to grow out of his compassion­ate conservati­ve philosophy.

Conservati­ve, just not angry

In 2008, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee also ran for the GOP nomination as a compassion­ate conservati­ve. He refused to apologize for supporting tuition breaks for the children of illegal immigrants in his state, saying that “You don’t punish a child because a parent committed a crime.” Huckabee was fond of saying that he was a conservati­ve, just not angry about it.

Like the Ecuadorian horned tree frog, a handful of compassion­ate conservati­ves can still be found, if you know where to look. Indiana Republican Dan Coats, who was involved with faithbased initiative­s before Bush ever heard about them, is back in the Senate. And former Bush aide Michael Gerson continues to preach the gospel from his perch as a Washington Post columnist.

After the Iowa caucuses, both Gerson and New York Times columnist David Brooks hailed the Catholic Santorum as the second coming of compassion­ate conservati­sm. And it’s true that in his victory speech in Iowa, Santorum sounded very much like a populist, arguing that Republican­s need to offer more than tax cuts and balanced budgets to Americans who are struggling.

But when it comes to specifics, there aren’t many government policies — particular­ly domestic programs — that Santorum supports to help alleviate poverty. He cheered most of the harsh cuts in hunger and housing programs that House Republican­s proposed this summer, cuts that were strongly opposed by the U.S. Catholic bishops. Santorum has said that he believes the bishops are wrong to back immigratio­n reform, and he has confessed he is unfamiliar with the phrase “a preferenti­al option for the poor,” which is an essential component of Catholic social teaching. Most recently, he drew criticism when he said of government programs, “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.” (Santorum later explained that he said “blah people,” not “black people.”)

There is a meanness to the way many Republican­s talk about the poor these days that was not en vogue during the Bush years. Unlike Huckabee, they are angry conservati­ves.

Gingrich spits out the words “food stamps” and implies they are gold coins showered on undeservin­g recipients. When debate moderator Juan Williams asked Gingrich whether his comments are “intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities,” he was roundly booed by the conservati­ve audience in South Carolina.

The conservati­ve Heritage Foundation released a report last September arguing that those living under the poverty line in the U.S. aren’t really poor because they have refrigerat­ors and microwaves. The almighty dollar

What happened to compassion? One answer is that it turned out to be expensive. Providing housing and food assistance, giving grants to charities that help low-income Americans, supporting job training programs — these all cost money. The federal deficit ballooned during the Bush administra­tion, and though much of that came from funding the Iraq War and an expensive Medicare prescripti­on drug benefit, Bush’s domestic faith-based programs and tripling of aid to Africa have been tagged with the blame.

In addition, the Tea Party movement has embraced what political writer Jill Lawrence calls “Darwinian conservati­sm.” You could also call it “Ayn Rand conservati­sm,” after the libertaria­n philosophe­r whose work many congressio­nal Republican­s praise. In 2010, Republican Senate candidates attacked programs such as Social Security, student loans and unemployme­nt benefits, saying they made Americans lazy.

The debates in this election cycle have also encouraged the turn away from compassion­ate conservati­sm. Led by Gingrich, who rose to prominence by giving bombastic speeches on CSPAN in an empty House chamber, the candidates have played to audiences hungry for red meat. (In fact, after a lackluster performanc­e in a Jan. 23 debate, Gingrich vowed to boycott any future debates that do not allow audience participat­ion.) These party faithful lustily cheer attacks and boasts, and they boo any statement that carries a whiff of moderation.

Just before the South Carolina primary, a progressiv­e Christian group called the American Values Network released an animated video, “Tea Party Jesus,” to mock the disconnect between popular conservati­ve rhetoric and Gospel teachings. In a “Sermon on the Mall,” a cartoon Jesus stands flanked by GOP politician­s and pundits as he declares, “Blessed are the mean in spirit . . . blessed are the pure in ideology.” It didn’t take long for a Tea Party site to promote the video instead of taking offense.

Tea Party activists might not have gotten the joke, but if the Republican Party rejects completely the idea of compassion for struggling Americans, it will be no laughing matter.

 ?? By Alejandro Gonzalez, USA TODAY ??
By Alejandro Gonzalez, USA TODAY

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States