COLUMN: The compassionate conservative myth
I used to loathe Valentine’s Day, but one year I figured out that it wasn’t the holiday I was having problems with; it was having a relationship in February. Now as far as holidays are concerned, Feb. 14 is pretty high up there as far as holidays are concerned. It’s one of my favorites now because it’s the only one where I don’t have to worry about giving or getting anyone anything. What’s more, it saves me a lot of money and the mental anguish associated with consuming vast quantities of the sugar-flavored, pastel-colored, heart-shaped chalk with the words-candies that want to “be mine” or who “love” me.
It’s not that I hate Cupid, nor am I anti-love, anti-pink or anti-Jesus, being single just leaves more room for “me-time,” frugality and time to ponder Earth’s greatest mysteries. What kinds of mysteries? Well, like how did the ancient Saint Valentinius ever became associated with over-priced flowers and Hallmark cards or how was President Bush was ever associated with good leadership and strong morals?
Which brings us to today’s column: compassion. You probably heard Bush talk about being a compassionate conservative in the past before he did things like lie and go to war. You know back when he was campaigning for the job against that vile ballot-recounting, fact-hugging, iceberg-saving Al Gore. He’s since shifted gears or, as conservative pundits refer to the phenomenon, “flip-flopped” to the bumbling borrow-and-spend liberator.
But the idea was that pairing sound budgeting and accountability with compassionate social programs, our society would simultaneously resolve the issues that Democrats tax and spend for without superfluous spending. Basically, it gives those running for office the ability to appeal to the moderates without coming out and saying they are moderate.
In theory, this compassionate conservative would do what the tax-and-spend Democrat pretends to do. And who could possibly be against a stronger education system, providing social opportunities for the disadvantaged and dismiss a laissez-faire economic system and a social Darwinist vision in favor of-you got it-compassion?
I mean, who wouldn’t vote for a compassionate conservative? He’s in touch with reality and is an advocate for the disadvantaged without breaking the American budget. He knows what needs to be done and what should be done but knows we can’t afford to do everything at the same time. He probably shares those traditional Christian values, namely the ones that tell the faithful to love their neighbor as themself and to judge not lest they be judged.
He’s probably reasonable instead of hard-core on the issues tearing America apart like abortion and gay rights. He’d probably be tough on terrorist but wise in foreign policy, and he would know that sustainable and true economic growth comes from a stronger educational system and a blossoming middle class, not in establishing a corporatocracy, exporting jobs instead of goods at the expense of working Americans.
He’d probably find a way to get much-needed lifeblood money back into our colleges and universities, at the very least return student loan interest rates back to their pre-Bush lows.
But the reality is that Republicans who call themselves compassionate conservatives don’t really hold these values, even if they give them lip service. Just look at Bush – his administration is indicative of paleo-conservative values, so out of touch with mainstream values and allied to corporate and Christian fundamentalist interests that they lose sight of what really matters.
Are there any wise and compassionate candidates in the wake of paleo-conservative movement and the Bush administration? There sure is, but you’re going to find them in the Democratic Party.
Happy Valentine’s Day. Class dismissed.
Matthew Blackham is a junior majoring in sociology. Comments can be sent to matblackham@cc.usu.edu.