Behold Compassionate Conservatism
By Sam Weaver (09/10/04)
Two of the first polls after the Republican National Convention show President Bush with an eleven-point lead over Senator Kerry. Yet on domestic issues such as management of the economy, health care, social security and education, Senator Kerry still maintains at least a slight lead in most polls. To be sure, polls taken on the Third of September do not foretell the outcome of the election on the Second of November. However, for at least a decade now, polls have consistently shown Democrat candidates much stronger than their Republican counterparts on “domestic policy” issues.
Why are Republicans so weak in the polls on domestic policy? The answer is really quite simple. For decades, Democrats and their benefactors in the Old Media have adroitly tied every domestic issue to how much federal funding or control is devoted to that issue. A candidate who is against more and more federal funding for or federal control over education, for example, is against education. A candidate who is against more and more regulation and control of the energy industry is against the environment. A candidate who is against increasing federal funding and/or regulation of individual health care is anti-health care. A presidential candidate who fails to produce more net jobs is a poor manager of the economy. The latest example is embryonic stem-cell research. If you are against the federal funding of research and development of new lines of embryonic stem-cells, then you are, by golly, against a potential cure for Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, cancer, and a whole host of other horrible illnesses. [Please see http://www.americandaily.com/article/4696]
This liberal tactic defies both common sense and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the U. S. Constitution. [Please see http://www.americandaily.com/article/908.] More importantly, it defies the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.
Even before November 2000, many conservatives were wary of then Governor Bush’s “compassionate conservatism”. Many conservatives were convinced that he had bought into that old liberal tactic and mantra. The first part of President Bush’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention has many of these conservatives very worried—and rightly so.
There are really only three answers to President Bush’s devotion to “compassionate conservatism”. 1) He is oblivious to common sense, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. 2) He understands all of these, but is deceiving or enticing moderate if not even liberal voters into voting for him by promising more federal funding and control of certain domestic concerns. Or, 3) He is working with all that he has at his disposal in a strategic, methodical way and the four years that he will (perhaps) have left to begin a trend of devolvement of federal regulation and control toward individual responsibility, accountability and liberty.
To be honest, I have no idea which one of these three answers actually guides the Bush presidency. That whole “new tone”—working with Senator Edward Kennedy on education reform and with other liberals in Congress on prescription drug policy—made me believe the first option was true for a time. Where did that get President Bush on any of his agenda? Senator Kennedy, seeing weakness, called him a liar and a conspirator on the Senate floor. His new tone rang off-key because national liberal Democrats are tone-deaf!
The Old Media worked overtime to convince you and me that the whole purpose behind the Republican National Convention was to use moderate speakers to connive swing voters. There is only one problem with that notion. Every one of the moderate speakers spoke in purely conservative terms. There was no wishy-washy, middle-of-the-road rhetoric in any of those speeches. [You may say, “Well, that was all by design and the speakers had no choice. Their speeches were heavily edited to present a conservative tone.” All that I am saying here is that if “compassionate conservatism” had been the impulse of the convention, then those moderate orators would have expressed some moderate thoughts and goals. Yet none of them did.]
After listening intently to the president’s speech on Thursday night, I am convinced that the third option is now the raison d’ etre of “compassionate conservatism”. President Bush tried compromise, and it got him nowhere with this national, dogmatic breed of liberals. In Texas, he was a uniter. When he campaigned for President of the United States, he made the slogan, “A uniter, not a divider”, one of his themes. His enemies became determined to use that slogan against him from the very beginning.
The president’s acceptance speech at Madison Square Garden on Thursday night should hearten every conservative. This president understands freedom and liberty. It should reassure every moderate. This president will work within the system, the law, and his American principles to give you more freedom and the federal government less regulation and control. It should leave liberals who understand and cherish neither liberty nor the American Ideal trembling with fear that they will lose every vestige of their power.
Modern American conservatism IS compassion! It is founded upon the Judeo-Christian ethic, “Love the LORD your GOD with all of your heart, soul and mind; and love your neighbor as you love yourself.” Modern Western liberalism, on the other hand, is based upon relativism, socialism and the proper care and feeding of the masses by powerful, centralized bureaucracies.
Some believe that President Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” is a compromise between these two philosophies. Moral, educated and informed conservatives point to the unprecedented rise in federal spending over the past four years as proof of this foolish compromise. As one of those conservatives, I am appalled by this compromise.
In the long term, there is much that conservatives MUST DO to show the folly of the liberal ideal. Unfortunately, at least for now, some degree of compromise is necessary to maintain the votes to keep lovers of liberty in office. It is a serious Catch-22. If we lose the election in November by completely disregarding the vote of the immoral, uneducated and uninformed, then how many judges will our opponent appoint and how much more socialistic policy will he enact?
Right now, it is the politician’s job to get himself elected. It is every good citizen’s job to educate and inform the voters. It is America’s job to hold the lamp of liberty high for the entire world to see. Right now, we need to get President Bush reelected. Otherwise, John Kerry will nominate “moderate” (read, extremely liberal) judges who will continue to act against the will of the people and the letter and spirit of the Constitution. A President Kerry would work to nationalize health care, regulate the energy industry, and completely mismanage the economy from the top down. A President John F. Kerry would seek to strengthen federal control over domestic policy in violation of common sense, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. And who knows what a President Kerry would do for (or against?) the War on Terrorism?!
Perhaps compassionate conservatism is a misguided ploy. What is the alternative? The alternative is socialism and weak leadership. The solution is a moral, educated and informed electorate.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Sam Weaver
