Compassionate Conservativism Laid Bare
February 27th, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |Ever since he first jumped (or was pushed- depending on who tells the story) on the stage of national politics, George W. Bush has laid claim to being a new kind of conservative- something he called “a compassionate conservative.” There’s nothing quite like creating a whole new phrase to define yourself or your ideologies. Not only can you confuse people into thinking you’re something that you’re really not, you can also continually adjust what exactly the phrase means to yourself, even if not to anyone else.
What the hell is compassionate conservatism anyhow? I’ve never really heard the president explain what this means- he probably can’t anyhow. I’m fairly confident that some ‘handler’ or speechwriter penned the term and then sat in a room with Georgie for a few hours teaching him to repeat it with various facial expressions. But the hope must have been that anyone hearing the words ‘compassionate conservatism’ would assume that at last here was a political philosophy that embraced the best of both worlds- that of someone who cared about both people and tradition; about helping each other while keeping an eye on the bank account; someone who would do no harm while preventing harm being wrought by others. That’s the beauty of sound bites and made-up names…each listener gets from it what they want.
But six years into ‘compassionate conservatism’ has offered us many clues as to what the ideology is really about, at least as practiced by it’s one and only follower, our great leader, President Bush. So here are a few handy translations for you, as evinced from the words and deeds of the man himself.
Support the Troops- Contrary to the supposed meaning, “Support the Troops” means sending them into battle under strength, under protected, and without a complete plan of action; it means cutting funding for veteran’s support and benefits; it means extending tours beyond original contract agreements without notice or right of refusal; it means changing the rules of calculating retirement benefits for Guards or Reservists; it means ignoring the impacts of lengthy and repeated tours of duty; and it means sending them into harms way for no more compelling reason than because you wanted to do it.
Homeland Security-Any action taken that can appear to be a security measure or any action that punishes people for trying to actually protect the country- weakening the Border Patrol by agressively prosecuting and imprisoning agents who actually tried to secure the border; making people take off their shoes before getting on a plane; temporarily banning water on planes unless you buy it after the security checkpoint; not inspecting incoming sea freight for explosives, radiation, or armed asssassins; trying to hand over American port security to foreign countries in regions where we are in a war; creating a war that gives exponential rise to anti-American sentiment.
Fiscal Responsibility-The ability to hide or conceal large governmental debt with ‘off the books’ funding and emergency spending bills; encouraging fraud, waste, and abuse through a purposeful system of nonaccountability and layered subcontracting in a war zone; pushing the tax burden onto the middle class and working poor while granting a huge tax break to the richest minority in the nation; offering tax breaks to multi-national companies who outsource labor, cut jobs at home, embezzle from investors, or reap record profits in a time of war; increasing the national debt to unseen levels and mortgaging future generations as far as the eye can see.
Energy Security-Oil; war for oil; environmental destruction for oil; maybe ethanol; more oil.
Comprehensive Immigration Reform-any reform that includes an open border, lowered wages, and amnesty for all current illegal immigrants.
Congress- group of elected officials who will either rubber stamp all presidential desires or cease to be relevant.
Family Values-cuts to health care and education budgets; ignoring victims of natural disasters; teaching adults about abstinence; sending husbands, sons, daughters, mothers, and various other family members to be killed or injured for life in a war of choice.
I hope this primer has helped you to better understand compassionate conservatism. Please feel free to add any I may have missed.
[tag]compassionate+conservatism, Bush[/tag]
9 Responses to “Compassionate Conservativism Laid Bare”
By steve on Feb 27, 2007 | Reply
It’s late and I am tired and I need to play devil’s advocate here Ken:
First off, if Herr Bush is a complete idiot by your assumption, there are some conflicting issues. One, why didn’t we learn this during the debates in 2000 or 2004. Clearly in 2000 he went up against an intellect in Al Gore. (though I disagree with Gore’s kind of intellect… but not the Global Warming thing. The guy is pretty smart) Gore had every opportunity to point this out to the American public. It had to have been well known, right? Bush Sr.’s son playing puppet to Cheney and Rumsfeld? Your side should have spotted this since you are all experts on the whole ordeal. You have been telling us how dumb he is for the last 6 years. And second, Bush’s “success” in Texas as governor was sold very well to the American public. He beat a strong politician in Ann Richards to get the job. If he was a complete idiot, we clearly would have noticed back then. I think it is safe to say to be a woman and a Democrat in Texas, Ann Richards must have had the smarts to debate Bush and take the bastard down into humiliation. But she didn’t…. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that Bush is NOT a dumb person. However this does not mean he is doing a great job either. Dude has flaws. He’s the shits. OK, and?
Lastly, you Democrats promised to take America in a new direction in 2006 when you swept through the House and Senate. The clock’s ticking buddy. This post is in this blog’s front page right now in 4 or 5 different forms by a few different authors that say the exact same thing on any given day, that you are saying right now. So what’s new? Your compadres in the House have past a non-binding resolution against the war. WTF does that mean? Why should I think that you have made a major accomplishment? It’s basically re-establishing the reason you guys won the damn elections. It took 3 months to basically continue the campaign. Okay… you are here, Pelosi has got the job. What now? C’mon!! It’s tiring to hear how bad it is in this country because Bush is President.
Show some balls and some leadership. If you hate the war, push out a BINDING resolution. That would seriously have more impact then the crap you are spewing right now. If you hate all the other things you think are wrong, start pushing through laws to change it. I’d rather see you guys crying your eyes out over a Presidential veto than having to promote serious time to a non-binding resolution that really doesn’t do anything but extend the debate that I thought was over in November.
So what say you?
By Paul Watson on Feb 27, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL,
Being smart is a drawback to politicians. Most people do not like voting for an intellectual (not sure of the reason but it might be due to either inferiority or a worry that if they’re that much smarter than me, how will I know they’re not cheating and confusing me).
Secondly, Bush is charismatic. I don’t agree with him and don’t feel that attracted to him, but he is good at making people like him on a personal level. Gore, let’s be honest, might be smart, noble, virtuous and a living saint (which is pushing things rather a lot), but God was he dull and uninspiring. Bush was inspiring.
Thirdly, appealing to the everyman, as Bush did, and Washington outsider works well in American culture.
And most people aren’t as interested in politics as people on this blog. They don’t look at things in great detail and honestly don’t care beyond the soundbites. And Gore sucked at soundbites. Bush said a lot of things that sound good. No child left behind sounds great, but it hasn’t worked very well.
So, no, it doesn’t necessarily come out in the debates that Bush would make a bad President. It could also be that he would have been fine without the stress caused by 9/11 which pushed him outside his competency limits.
And I don’t think you’d find much argument here that the Democrats are not pushing things as far or as fast as they want. Of course, if they did, you’d be complaining about Democrats railroading. They have brought in quite a few bills as I understand things, just that the liberal media doesn’t care about broadcasting them. Compromise isn’t a dirty word.
By Paul Watson on Feb 27, 2007 | Reply
Arrrgh,
Sorry steve, not SteveIL. Too many steves!!!!!!!!
By SteveIL on Feb 27, 2007 | Reply
I hate to say it Ken (actually I don’t), “compassionate conservatism” has already been dead and buried. You’re just a tad behind on this. All it turns out to have been is a new form of big government liberalism. “Compassionate conservatives” and open-borders Republicans are bad enough, but they are still nothing like the big government liberals, especially regarding Homeland Security and Comprehensive Immigration Reform, and considering it was big government liberals who put in those big dollar programs in the first place that Bush (and the Republicans) wouldn’t cut.
Back to immigration and security, the one-party dictatorship in Maryland seeks to undermine the rest of the country:
Isn’t that great? As a U.S. citizen and resident of Illinois, I’d have to pay out-of-state tuition to become a Terp. If I went through the immigration system legally and was a resident of Delaware, I’d have to pay out-of-state tuition to become a Terp. But, not an illegal alien. It doesn’t matter where they’re from, they get to pay the in-state tuition. Isn’t that wonderful? And the legal citizens and aliens of Maryland, with the assistance of the rest of us in the U.S., get to pay the remainder of the subsidies through our taxes, including the difference of what would normally be charged for tuition. Isn’t that just fair?
This isn’t unique, though. The Illinois Soviet Socialist Republic (ISSR) has a similar measure regarding illegal aliens getting mortgages with reduced rates, with the difference in the subsidy being paid by the taxpayer.
When big government liberals actually care about national security and that they are actually for working people, let me know. But, “compassionate conservatism” is already gone. Real conservatives will make sure it never comes back. Then we go after the lie that has been big government liberalism.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 27, 2007 | Reply
Steve, are you saying that you thought Bush seemed smart back in 2000? Really???
It was always pretty clear to me and others that Bush was just a corporate shill and that Cheney would be running the show. You can find plenty of stories and such out there from the period that would show you that. Yes, Americans are pretty stupid, and so Bush had to really fuck up before woke up to him. I think many people still don’t get that the man is nothing but a puppet, but plenty of people do now.
JMJ
By steve on Feb 27, 2007 | Reply
It’s Jersey… You are pretty much calling everyone stupid who voted Republican. That is ludicrous…
You guys should have identified him as an idiot way before he became President. It’s really simple. Look what we did to Howard Dean! I think I articulated my points pretty well here.
Sorry it’s over your head Jersey, but what isn’t.
By ken grandlund on Feb 27, 2007 | Reply
Actually Steve, most of the people who didn’t vote for Bush DID identify him as a boob-thus they didn’t support his in either race. Just because he managed to pull the wool over the eyes of republicans does not make him some kind of political genius- to me it says more about the state of republicanism in this country, that they do not seriously question who they have at the helm.
By steve on Feb 27, 2007 | Reply
What are you talking about Ken? Pull the wool over our eyes? Why the hell then is there a primary? McCain and the others had a chance and Bush emerged in 2000. Same thing with Gore on the flipside.
It’s like you are saying… only smart people are Democrats. Do you really want to go down that road?
By Jersey McJones on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
Steve, stories of Bush’s stupidity go way back. If anything, people voted for him because he’s stupid. They called the stupidity “common sense,” his stupid speech was called “plain talk,” his bunny-eyed stares were “cute,” and his religion on his sleave was called “Christian.” People bought the package. They’re finding out now what was inside.
You have to separate the classes before you go down the road of partisan intelligence. But studies do show, as I have proven here before, that the more educated one is, the more liberal they are likely to be, though the scale evens out among post-grad professionals, whose interests center more on how their political affiliation affects their bottom line.
JMJ