Compassionate Conservatism?

Overall, I was a fan of George W Bush and his policies. However, one area where I believe he set back the cause of conservatism was in the area of government handouts and specifically entitlements intended to help those less fortunate. The phrase “compassionate conservatism” is such a perversion of conservative values and vision, that I believe we will suffer its effects for years to come.

Let me explain: as my brother points out, the phrase “compassionate
conservatism” implies that conservatives were not compassionate
before. And indeed, this notion underlies a greater issue — I believe
that conservatives often offer arguments which conceal the essential
foundations of conservatism.

To illustrate this point, what is the first argument heard against
government entitlement programs, like welfare, socialized medicine or
social security. All too often, the first response, is that these
programs are essentially theft by the government, taking from one part
of the society to another part of society. Make no mistake, this point
is crucial, and 100% correct. If a citizen were to try and run a ponzi
scheme like Social Security or try and help one person by taking from
another, that person would be thrown in jail. Yet, when government
employs the same tactic, its supporters are hailed as heroes. However,
if we beat that drum too loudly, we lose sight of a much more
important point, and the point that should front and center, I
believe, in the mind of the conservative:

Free market solutions achieve the desired goals much more effectively
than government solutions.

This is the danger that “compassionate conservatism” poses: it implies
that conservatism, left to its own devices, cannot help the poor, and
those in need of help, that only the government can provide solutions.
The phrase sends that the troubling message that, yes, maybe there
might be other reasons to uphold conservative principals (namely the
immorality of government seizure of private property), but, it must be
acknowledged, the only way to achieve the goals of “social justice” is
through government intervention.

But this is simply not true. Well beyond the issue of government theft
is the plain fact that more often that not, these government programs
do not achieve their stated aims. Conservative free market solutions
can provide much better and more effective solutions that the
progressives, clamoring for more government intervention, tout. Let’s
look at just a few  examples:

a) Health care. The stated goal of socialist medicine is universal
coverage; certainly a worthy and lofty goal. Of course, we must first
define what that means: if it means that everyone should “enjoy” the
same level of mediocre care, with long wait times, and inferior
service, then yes, government run health care is the best way to get
there. But if the goal is to have the most people covered (maybe not
everyone), with the best possible care, then it is clear, that
allowing true cross state, competition, without stifling regulations
with minimum requirements, is the correct course of action. In short,
the best way to achieve universal coverage, certainly what we all
want, is through the conservative principals of the free market, and
THAT is the argument we should be offering. “Yes, we conservatives are
all for universal coverage, and the free market is the best way we
know to achieve that goal.”

b) Helping the poor. Progressives believe that only through welfare
can the less fortunate be provided for, and thus the government must
get involved. While conservatives  screaming about high taxes and
government intrusion (which again, are important points, but not the
most important), we get a reputation, and forget something much more
basic: the poor can be helped in a much more effective fashion by the
free market and private giving. This is true for a number of reasons:
1) government programs are marked by a high level of inefficiency.
Private donations enjoy much less overhead. Thus, the free market
provides greater dollar for dollar benefit to the recipient 2)
government programs are indiscriminate; recipients receive grants no
matter their level of irresponsibility. Private, local giving can
tailor giving based upon true need and responsibility. 3) For the same
reason, government welfare does not encourage the recipient to make a
better life for themselves. Instead, the recipient learns to become
dependent on the largess of the government, and becomes accustomed to
living at the standard of living provided by the welfare. Private
donations on the other hand, can much more effective guide the
receipient to become self sustaining and encourage a better life,
again becuase this type of localized giving can be tailored to the
individual; it is not an endless spigot designed to hold the
receipeint at that station of life indefinitely. 3) Higher taxes
needed to pay for welfare result in less private donations, as people
feel they have “already given at the office.”
Thus once again, the mantra from conservatives should be “We want to
help the poor. We want the best for the poor. That is why we oppose
government welfare and entitlement programs, and instead encourage
private giving and donations through free market solutions.”

c) Social security. Where to start here. Any fund manager who made the
returns that social security has provided since its inception would be
run out of wall street faster than you can say “FDR”. Somehow, its
accepted in social security; private investment could provide such a
greater return on investment. In addition, I can easily lose my
“investment” in social security, if I make the mistake of dying too
soon. This SHOULD be a slam dunk: “We conservatives want to help
people maximize their retirement savings, and provide for them when
they get older. For that exact reason, we strongly oppose social
security — it does NOT provide for people when they get old. Private
investment, instead is our tool of choice to best help people retire
in comfort”

I have no doubt the reader can conjure up some more clear examples.
The point is that conservatism is inherently compassionate, well
before George W Bush came onto the scene. And it is because we
conservatives lost sight of that, that Bush felt he had to persuade
Americans conservatives can also spend with the best of them, thus
showing their “compassion”. Conservatives must argue, again and again,
that we would like to help the less fortunate passionately, and that
is precisely why we embrace conservative ideals and visions. If
government intervention is truly the embodiment of compassion, I will
take cruelty any day.