General Challenge

Conservatism needs no apology

In this year's presidential race, George W. Bush, DC '68, has attempted to put a new spin on Republican philosophy. He has gathered several admirable campaign themes, from his focus on education to his outreach to minorities, into a united and focused platform. His next step has not been so wise: Bush has given this set of beliefs a supposedly catchy label, "compassionate conservatism." Liberals smirk at this slogan or even regard it with outright derision. Though I support Bush, I cannot help but also be amused—and dismayed—by the absurdity of such a label.

The way I see it, Governor Bush only hurts himself with this effort to patch up his message. In fact, the phrase "compassionate conservatism" is music to liberals' ears. In so many words, the governor's slogan tells Democrats, "okay, you win." It surrenders to liberals' accusations that there is something wrong with conservatism in its traditional, unqualified conception. With each new housing project that Bush unveils, with each new promise to stave off the implosion of Social Security, Bush makes another concession to the left. Although "practicing what you preach" is admirable, diluting one's initial message for the sake of expediency is not.

As it stands now, Bush still deserves the conservative label, and even from a purely pragmatic standpoint, he would probably do better to let any "compassionate" measures speak for themselves. The more Bush emphasizes and draws attention to them, the more he will be seen as a hypocrite, a player for votes, an Al Gore wannabe with a Republican label. Bush will alienate his core constituency who liked him for what he was. Besides, he stands to profit little from his pandering—if people believe in what both Bill Clinton, LAW '73, and Gore call compassionate government, and in what Bush has duped himself into mimicking, they will probably vote for Gore anyway.

When Bush places conservatism first, he does well. His efforts at education reform—and his willingness to follow up on his demands—have met with success. His advocacy of a missile defense system in an age of developing belligerents is long overdue. Yet Bush has forgotten that this conservatism needs no apologies. He should be proud to represent the ideals of individual rights and personal responsibility. He should not be ashamed to let those who succeed justly reap their deserved rewards. In this there is neither compassion nor brutality, only adherence to the high standard put forth by the Founders' ideals. If Bush stands for what is right, his position needs no qualification.

Yet both major presidential candidates have fallen short on a deeper level. Both Gore and Bush fail to realize that any effort at "compassionate government" is misplaced. Government is fit only for coercion. Especially in a democracy and republic, there can be no real "state emotion"; by the nature of government, subjects comply whether they like it or not. Regardless of a liberal congress-man's personal sentiment, the person who files a tax return bloated with social-program spending is not acting compassionately. In fact, he's probably grimacing as he drops it in the mailbox, never to be seen again. One cannot determine "compassion" by the number of dollars spent on public housing or food stamps. Compassion is a matter of intent to do good, manifested one deed at a time. The compassionate person makes a personal sacrifice freely, in an act whose end he knows and can observe. True compassion must come from the heart—something no government, liberal or conservative, can achieve.

Back to Opinion...