August 31, 2004
Revisiting Compassion and Conservatism
This is the week, four years ago, when we were finally introduced to George W. Bush. The Republican convention of 2000 was his coming out party, as are most conventions these days. He seemed personable, down to earth, strong, a guy who could appreciate a little horseplay. He certainly seemed more lively than Al Gore, though the intelligence gap between them, even then, was clearly a chasm.
I'd vote for Gore on his record and his intelligence, his grasp of the issues, his experience in the upper echelons of power. But I didn't think any less of Bush than I think of most children of privilege - a little sheltered from the real world, a measure of naievete borne in the protection of wealth, perhaps a bit frightened by their own sweat. In fact, I found his message of compassionate conservatism intruguing and a worthy ideal to which to aspire.
Four years later, it's time to reassess.
In the midst of the Republican convention of 2004, I find myself wondering aloud what happened to that ideal. A man who has spent nearly a hundred million dollars on advertising that accomplishes little more than to paint his opponent as a "flip-flopper" should be clear and consistent on every issue, shouldn't he? Wouldn't we view an adulterous minister, railing to his congregation on the evils of the flesh, as a hypocrite? If a man preaches compassion, shouldn't he truly be compassionate? If he speaks in lowered and respectful tones about the virtues of conservatism, shouldn't he actually be conservative? Personally, I wonder about a man's view of those around him when he talks the talk but refuses to walk the walk. Does he think we're just not watching?
A truly compassionate president would be driven unerringly to assure that those with the least are properly looked after. The poor would be given the hand they need, the hand they desperately crave, to pull themselves from poverty, and only for as long as it took to make that happen. That's all they want. The sick and infirm would be given every assurance that the vast wealth of the United States is behind the research that will ease their pain and prevent it in their grandchildren. That's their respite. Those on the edges of society would sleep well at night knowing that their lives and lifestyles were meaningful to the overall fabric of society. That recognition is their greatest aspiration.
In each of the past four years, the number of American citizens living in poverty has increased. Those in the top ten percent of income have gotten disproportionately wealthier.
Americans Back Stem Cell Research Funds
Is there any public entity engaged in sussing out the ethical questions surrounding stem cell research? These questions are, after all, the reason for the limitation on research that could change the life of everyone in America. Are we really looking for the answers?
GOP platform seeks gay marriage ban
For the first time in American history, a president has gone on record in support of a constitutional amendment that will ban an entire class of American citizens from the full and equal protection of the law.
Regardless of what you may hear from New York this week, this isn't compassion. It's cruelty, plain and simple.
I was raised in a conservative Republican household. Long before I even knew what a liberal was, I had a solid grasp of the core principles of the Republican party and conservatism. Remember the convention many now refer to as the "last with any meaning," the 1976 Republican convention in Kansas City? I was in Kemper Arena when Ronald Reagan and George Bush stood on the stage with Gerald Ford, nominated by his party less than a day before. Conservatism, as I was taught, was about spending less than you bring in. In time and with diligence, that could lead to a tax cut. Conservatism was about making the Federal government smaller and less intrusive. This while still providing the states with funding and services that would keep them strong - truly a republic. Conservatism was about prudence on the world stage and strength in diplomacy. To win hearts and minds with the fruits of our wealth but to always, always protect us from the real enemies.
Federal budget deficit hits record $395.8 billion
How can we possibly spend so much more than we take in? To paraphrase a well-known quote, by "spending like a drunken Guardsman."
Rules of court limit who can challenge Patriot Act provision
Only those old enough to remember the McCarthy era have ever seen the government so deeply in our business.
Republicans Again Link Iraq War to War on Terror
There must be a connection because they keep telling us so.
This clearly isn't conservatism. It's an utter and absolute lack of both fiscal and moral responsibility.
I'm not sure how much if at all we'll hear the phrase "compassionate conservatism" over the course of the next few nights, though it was the rallying cry just four years ago. I'm sure we will, however, hear the phrase "flip-flop" ad nauseum. If that phrase means "to deviate from one's stated position," well, then it's really all just a matter of perspective, now, isn't it?
Posted by Tony Steidler-Dennison at August 31, 2004 11:58 PMCompassion comes around for George every four years like the Olympics. (Stolen from the Daily Show)
The rest of the time he hands out Gov’t cash to his buddies like a drunken pilot at a tailhook party.
Posted by: Greg at September 1, 2004 01:07 AMI find talk about how Bush has been so “uncompassionate” rather hilarous. he has dumped even more money in the super-compassionate medicare, not taking into account its a black hole. I dislike Bush (on domestic policy) and refuse to vote for him primarily because he is so “compassionate” that he has no sense of fiscal restraint (of course, the reason he is funding these programs is the same reasons liberals do when they are in power- to get more votes).
On another point….
If Americans back stem cell research as your links says, they can donate money to said funding!! There are many people who disagree with stem cell research-and the only thing that has been done is to affect the federal funding that this research gets.
Besides the moral issues involved with stem cell research (which I do not know enough to comment on), the federal government has no constitutional power funding scientific research unless that funding is along the lines one of the enumerated powers that Congress has under Article I, Section 8- but the left doesnt care much for constitutional limits of the federal government (well Bush does not really either- but thats more in areas like civil liberties).
Note that the constitution only allows congress to promote science “by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” It does not allow the Congress to make huge outlays of taxpayer money to fund scientific research- even if most americans think that research is a “good idea.”
One of the reasons we have the constitution is to limit the things the federal government can do. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no relationship between the majority of the functions performed by our federal government today and the powers listed, in plain text, in the constitution. I urge you all to actually go read what the constitution allows our federal goverment to do (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) and then compare that to the federal budget. The disconnect is chilling. unforuntately, the only party talking about this problem is the libertarians, who get almost no national attention.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at September 1, 2004 01:42 AMMisha said, “If Americans back stem cell research as your links says, they can donate money to said funding!! There are many people who disagree with stem cell research-and the only thing that has been done is to affect the federal funding that this research gets.”
Dead on right, Misha. Geron is a company developing stem cell research from lines it owns and this company is unencumbered since it receives NO government funding, and is therefore not constrained by federal limits. If folks want more stem cell research, they should be buying Geron stock, and making me a bit wealthier on the way.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2004 03:09 AMDavid:
My morality and compassion for you now prevent me from buying Geron stock. In doing so, I might inadvertently help you become rich, at which point you would become a de facto Republican. I’m not sure your psyche would be able to handle such a quandary, and you might then become a raving lunatic……which would then take you back to being on the “left”. Hmmm, maybe it all works out after all……ha ha.
Seriously, Misha is correct. There are moral issues regarding stem cell research. Its not as simple as saying that those opposed to fetal stem cell research dont want to cure people—-that is an ignorant and infantile argument.
There currently is no proof that fetal stem cells will cure disease—its theoretical. Its also theoretical that ADULT stem cells might be able to do the same things that fetal stem cells are thought to be capable of.
The use of adult stem cells would eliminate most of the current medical/ethical concerns. I’d like to see more research done in this arena as well.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 1, 2004 08:22 AMI do not vote along party lines, so maybe I can offer a non-biased opinion on this.
“The Gap Widens”- Really depends on whose numbers you look at and how you want to spin them. I earn alittle under 22,000 a year, work two jobs, 18 hours a day to support a family of four. I still see help wanted signs on just about every corner. People need to be responsible for themselves and not depend on the government for everything.
“Americans Back Stem Cell Research Funds”- I agree with Misha on this one.
“GOP platform seeks gay marriage ban”- 70 to 80 percent of the country agrees with this, so your saying that the country supports the GOP platform. Personally I’m an atheist and have no biblical objections to this. I think its gross, but everyone should be free to love who they want. But I don’t want any tax dollars supporting it in any way.
“Federal budget deficit hits record $395.8 billion”- I agree with you on this one. The Federal govt. spends way to much on way too many things. Lets quit sending money to other countries. Lets quit financing lazy people, special groups to save this and that, people who are here illegally and all other tax money eating projects that are created just to get more votes.
“Rules of court limit who can challenge Patriot Act provision”- I agree with you on this one also but it did not start with the Patriot Act. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco?
“Republicans Again Link Iraq War to War on Terror”- So true so true and I’m getting sick of it.
Posted by: Tim at September 1, 2004 10:18 AMI’m in agreement on the stem cell issue, as well. I wasn’t as articulate as I should have been with my thoughts (see the timestamp on the post!).
The plan, as announced by Bush, was to limit the number of lines on which federally-funded research could be conducted, while the ethical issues were being investigated and worked through (my emphasis). To my knowledge, there’s no such think-tank type work going on. In that context, “investigating the issues” seems more like a hard and fast roadblock than a temporary measure intended to move us forward cautiously.
And, David — the commercialization of this research concerns me almost as much as the ethical issues. When the potential for change is as big as with stem cell research, it should have at least some altruistic component. I’m very nervous about leaving the vast majority of the research to commercial interests.
Posted by: Tony Steidler-Dennison at September 1, 2004 02:53 PM[Comment deleted for having nothing to do with the topic. WatchBlog Manager]
Posted by: P.V. John at September 5, 2004 06:16 PM
