House of Eratosthenes

You know what? I’m gonna go ahead and agree with that one. The event Tuesday night could be regarded not so much as a final burial of President Bush’s legacy, but more like a final burial of the dreaded and dubious c.c.

It certainly is a legitimate argument to present, and worth pondering, that c.c. was the primary target of the referendum Tuesday night. Lessee…President Bush was the universal pariah, no question about it. Liberals just plain hated him because of the “R” after his name, plus that whole cowboy smirk/swagger thing. Conservatives recoiled from the ballooning budget. Didn’t hear too much, in 2008, about “thousands of soldiers killed and no WMD.” That doesn’t seem to be the hot topic of the hour. Not post-surge. It’s more all about financial issues. Our government spends too much freakin’ money.

What Happened to Smaller Government? The “compassionate” part of compassionate conservatism, seems to have something to do with making it spend even more. It could be about something else; but I don’t think so. Like President-Elect Obama, it has little definition because it needs little — its intellectual appeal, what there is of it, lies in the fact that its name has been repeated over and over again. It is therefore up to each individual paying attention to form his own understanding of what it is.

And I think it is this: An organized response to what took place in our nation’s political scene, pre George W. Bush. Pre Clinton, actually. Back in the Tip O’Neill days. This is the problem, for which compassionate conservative was formulated as the solution. At least, in my mind…

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.

To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.

The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia’s mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat down. The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.”

She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn’t know. The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.

Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth he offers ice cream, and fifty percent of America reacts like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other fifty percent know they’re going to have to feed the cow.

Compassionate conservatism was a response to this. It was, from the beginning, a solution in search of a problem because orthodox conservatism already had two good responses.

It used to be the response was something like “You’re Americans, and Americans are better than this.” That worked. It meant people should work, get back up again after being knocked down now and then, do things every day a little bit better than they did ’em the day before — in the land of opportunity, sooner or later they’d have their ice cream. Well, Vietnam took care of that, and then Watergate really took care of it. People don’t want to be lectured about decency, from people they know to have done indecent things.

And then, with the Reagan era, people were persuaded to understand the difference between freedom and coercion when it came to helping others less well-off. The Gipper had an easygoing charm and a soft, non-militant adoption of Ayn Rand principles — people saw this, and saw the logic. The light went on. When you labor under state-imposed requirements to remit funds that the state will then, in turn, remit to others…this does not make you a decent person.

This second wave seems to have just kinda gone-somewhere. Nobody’s been able to define what exactly happened to it. Logically, it should’ve worked; historically, it did; it seems it was ultimately defeated by attrition. The younger voters do not like to cast their first ballots over a lifetime, in a landscape in which problems have been solved. They do not like to believe that. The younger generation always wants to believe everything that could’ve been screwed up, has been, and it’s up to them to fix it.

And anyway, since Reagan’s election, the democrat party put up so many “Olivias” to give away ice cream. One of them was named William Jefferson Clinton. Politicians like to solve problems with politics first, you know…you knew that, right?

And so, that second-wave argument didn’t work anymore. Enter the solution in search of a problem. Compassionate conservatism.

Roughly translated:

Hey, let’s have our side give away ice cream too!

The rest is history…and so, today, we find ourselves in the aftermath of Election Day 2008. Compassionate Conservatism. Coffin. Nail. Hammer. Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang.

The lesson is a rather simple one. Actually, there’s more than one lesson. First of all — Reagan had it right. You can’t legislate a nation into a state of decency, into feelings of compassion, into caring for others less well-off. These things do not come from a nation’s laws, for the concept of requiring a citizenry to turn over their production to the tax man is antithetical to real charity and compassion. It has to be voluntary or else it doesn’t count.

Secondly: Any principled movement in politics, is monolithic or else it is nothing. You do not compromise these and then expect to prevail over the long term, because by compromising, you’re admitting that the other side is probably correct. This makes it look like you’re trying to snooker someone, even if that isn’t really the case. Think of going out camping and then getting into that argument over whether the driest tinder should be gathered for the campfire, or is it alright to dump any ol’ mossy mess in a pile and try to set it ablaze. You do not say “dry wood burns the best, but in a spirit of compromise let’s gather up some stuff that is kinda sorta wet.” If you know you’re right, and you have the interests of the camping party at heart, you would not be making such a concession. Makes you look like a flim flam man.

That’s the lesson for the Republicans from this one. They tried to put together their own program for giving away ice cream, and in so doing eradicated the meaningful distinction between themselves and the other guys. This has always mystified me about national politics. Compromise, to me, might make some good sense when you’re not in office yet, and you’re trying to get there. Once you’re in, I have the sense that politicians are not too much aware of exactly how rapidly the electorate becomes tired of ’em — it makes far less sense to expunge the defining differences between yourself and the other guys, when you’re in there, being talked-about every single week, with your welcome being a little more thoroughly worn-out by the minute.

So let’s bring the whole compassionate-conservatism train wreck to a halt, right here and now. Real compassion is voluntary. You can’t require someone to be compassionate. And government with regard to domestic matters, no matter what the issue being discussed, is all about force. It has nothing to do with anything that’s elective, and therefore is entirely removed from any discussion about what innately good people we are, or aren’t. Compassionate conservatism is illogical, causes far more problems than it solves, is more expensive than anything we can afford, and politically, over the long term, doesn’t work anyway.

If bodies are to be tossed overboard on the Republican ship, they can start with that bloated carcass right there. Within the realm of American politics, it emerges eminently as the big boondoggle of the new milennium.

I don’t know if it’s fair to discuss Bush’s legacy without mentioning Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.
- JohnJ | 11/06/2008 @ 10:03
It isn’t, but that really isn’t the subject here except with regard to his popularity. For reasons I don’t entirely know, and aren’t part of what I’m inspecting — A&R don’t figure into his approval ratings.

In an alternative universe, in which Bush made all decisions the same way but stuck to the points made above (compassion is a personally voluntary thing or else it is nothing) in lieu of CC, he’d be a spectacularly popular figure right now. Smirks, swaggers, stumbling & mumbling…and all. I have no way of proving that, but I believe it strongly.
- mkfreeberg | 11/06/2008 @ 10:36

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Compassionate ConservatismThursday, November 6th, 2008

Compassionate Conservatism
Thursday, November 6th, 2008