What is a compassionate comservative?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Myoptimism, Sep 3, 2004.

  1. Myoptimism

    Myoptimism New Member

    A. An animal that comes out of hibernation every 4 years.

    Tony :)

    P.S. I consider myself more conservative than liberal, with an overlarge dose of libertarianism for flavor. Mongrel party anyone?
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    What is a compassionate conservative?

    Bush and Kerry are walking down the street. They see a homeless person.

    Bush hands him his business card and says come to my office tomorrow and I will give you a job. Then he hands him $20 for a meal.

    Seveal weeks later the same scenario. Kerry gives the homeless person the address of the nearest welfare office, reaches into Bush's pocket, pulls out $50 and gives it to the homeless person.

    :D :D :D :D
  3. Casey

    Casey New Member

    Jimmy for Prez

    As usual, Jimmy Clifton is right on the money! Great response.
  4. Rich Hartel

    Rich Hartel New Member

    Re: Re: What is a compassionate comservative?

    This is a great response, I could not have said it any better!!

    Rich Hartel
  5. javila5400

    javila5400 New Member

    How about this for a definition of compassionate conservative.

    Bush sends the military might of the American armed forces to neutralize enemies that threaten our way of life. His plan, being a compassionate conservative, is to kill Islamic fundamentalists in their own territory, without mercy and without remorse, and with extreme prejudice, so that 911 will never happen again.

    Kerry, on the other hand, has a different approach to being "compassionate." He finds ways to justify the attacks on America. He blames his fellow citizens for 911. He would rather get France's approval in defending America. He would rather give nukes to rogue nations so that there is a "balance of power."
  6. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Re: Re: What is a compassionate comservative?

    Jimmy Jimmy Jimmy. You forget that since Bush there has been a net job LOSS of about a million jobs. Sorry, mister Homeless man, Mr. Bush has no job for you. Remember, that the Republicans were responsible for putting most of you on the street in the first place. You remember Uncle Ronnie, don’t you, who said something like “why can’t they just get jobs?” And I guarantee you won't get $20 from Mr. Bush's pocket either. If Mr. Homeless person were in Texas when Bushie was Gov. there, then there's a pretty good chance we could get him rung up for a crime that would get him executed. That would get the trash off the street at least, so Mr. Bush wouldn't have to step over the lowlife.

    Now if Mr. Homeless man could spruce himself up and become an exec for an oil company, then Mr. Bush has some business for him. Mr. Homeless person, does your company do oil mining, or build fighters or tanks? If so, then we're talking.

    Mr. Homeless man could get his butt into the military and get three squares a day, and a damn good shot at fighting in a war that nobody understands, courtesy of an Administration which, almost to a man, found a way to avoid service when it was their time.

    If Mr. Homeless man could become part of the burgeoning middle/lower class, he could get a meaningless tax cut of a couple hundred bucks. Of course, Mr. Homeless man's kids would have to squeeze into overcrowded urban classrooms, and the local library might have to be shut down. Oh and it might be hard to get decent medical care and counseling. But what the heck, you got $200 in your pocket. That gets you a few six packs, and maybe a cleaning at the dentist's office.

    Of course, if we all spent money the way the Bush Admin. does, we’d all be on the streets.

    Here's a challenge to the conservatives: would anyone like to point out any significant steps Bush has taken to ameliorate the homeless problem? Anything at all?

    The usual strategy for conservatives is to deny that it's really a problem. Rather it's a myth invented by the "liberal" media. That's why the title of this thread is virtually an oxymoron.

    Compassionate conservative. That's a good one. Keep em coming.
  7. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Re: Re: What is a compassionate comservative?

    This qualifies as hilarious. Jimmy, is this like Bush's magnanimous efforts at Harken Energy, Arbusto Energy, and Bush Exploration Co.?

    If you recall he didn't get anyone jobs there. Oh, that's right, in fact those companies went belly up under his skillful guidance, except that Bush miraculously was able to sell his stock right before the collapse, and he benefited from some insider loans along the way.

    Is that what you're talking about, Jimmy?

    By the way, the rumor is that since Bush Exploration Co., was never able to actually find any oil, they turned instead to a search for George Bush's intelligence. To date, no luck there either. Keep searching fellas, you'll find something. :D
  8. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Bush has been very clear on the fact that this is not his goal--he's trying to effect regime change in terrorism-friendly governments, not murder all Muslims whose religious beliefs swing too far to the right. I'm shocked that anyone would suggest that Bush wants to murder hundreds of millions of people in a religious crusade--only the most hysterical of liberals would make that claim--and then put forth the obscene opinion that this would be a good thing.
    I challenge you to find citations for these claims, but of course you can't--you knew they were false when you posted them.

  9. BLD

    BLD New Member

    Bush's Africa Policy

    This is compassionate conservative. Bush has done more for Africa by a long shot than any liberal President has ever dreamed of. Why he doesn't focus on this stuff in the campaign is beyond me as it speaks volumes about his heart.

  10. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    I've wondered about this sort of thing myself too, BLD--not only regarding the work he's done to help fight AIDS in Africa, but regarding the most convincing argument he could have used in favor of the Iraq War. I've said since day one that I thought a solid humanitarian case could have been made for overthrowing the Baathists (and even Molly Ivins agreed on that point), and I wondered why Bush didn't use that as his causus bellum. This was Clinton's justification for intervening in Bosnia, and it passed muster with moderates and liberals. But Bush seems to almost be afraid to campaign on real examples of his compassionate conservatism. It's a "don't get into the water!" mistake, right up there with John Kerry going on and on about his Vietnam War record.

    Back in 1999 or 2000, a Muslim acquaintance--critical of U.S. foreign policy--talked about how much more humane it would have been if we had just overthrown the Iraqi government rather than letting hundreds of thousands of civilians die under U.N. sanctions. I don't think any decent and well-informed person really loved Saddam's government, regardless of how they might have felt about the war itself.

    There are, of course, other policies that show evidence of real compassionate conservatism--such as Bush's attitude toward immigrants and his (to me) astonishingly wise, and politically unnecessary, defense of American Muslims in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

    It's examples like these that lead me to think that if Bush does get a second term, maybe we'll be okay after all. I'm not taking any chances, mind you--John Kerry still gets my vote--but I do need to remind myself periodically, in the heat of this election year, that Bush is no monster, either.

    We're really very lucky that we live in a country where Kerry is considered too left-wing and Bush is considered too right-wing; looking at the U.S. State Department and Amnesty International reports on human rights worldwide, I wonder what "too left-wing" and "too right-wing" would mean for people in North Korea or Saudi Arabia. As we try to effect change, let's take a certain amount of pride and comfort in how relatively benign our respective opposition parties look. Ralph Nader says the Democrats and Republicans both look alike. To some extent I agree, but I'm not sure that's always a bad thing. Moderate compromise tends to bring out the best in us; angry passion tends to bring out the worst.

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 10, 2004
  11. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I think that there's a basic difference between:

    Arguing that people need to help themselves, and arguing that people can't help themselves because the real problem is with the system.

    The former argument is that of the right, the latter the argument of the left. That's why the right often appears judgemental and why the left seems so fond of utopian social-change agendas.

    When looking at problems, the right emphasizes individual causation, the left social causation. The right traces problems to life-style choices, the left to membership in a larger race/class/gender grouping.

    I think that I would characterize a compassionate conservative, in a political as opposed to an emotional sense, as someone who sees individuals as responsible for the course of their own lives and who wants to make sure that every individual has some opportunity available to improve his or her lot.

    I consider myself something of a compassionate conservative in this sense. I don't like making excuses for people, but I do like multiplying their options. That's one of the reasons why I strongly support DL. It's also why I like the community college system so much, why I favor adult continuing education and so on.

    Offering low-income people some community college vocational programs does them more good than demanding socialist revolution in their behalf.

    One approach is bottom up, emphasizing individuals, treating them as adults and never losing sight of their autonomy. The other approach is top down, seeing individuals as tokens playing out roles defined for them by their social class, gender and the color of their skin.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 10, 2004
  12. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    I admit that "government programs" to help the "economically" or "socially" "disadvantaged" disturb me for exactly BillDayson's reasons. I don't particularly mind seeing my tax dollars go to assit the poor; I have enough and am not particularly ambitous. However, so often the "help" takes the form of government interference and government supervision of what would otherwise be the citizen's private life. Furthermore, I am by no means convinced that government agents know what's best for each of us.

    The classic example is the effect that state child protection agencies had on Indian tribes before Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act. The states took into custody Indian children because their tribal family life looked neglectful by white standards. Sometimes, no doubt, interference was a good thing but sometimes, it certainly was NOT.
  13. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Bill, I'm used to insightful analysis from you, but this is pure rhetoric. The fact of the matter is that most genuinely compassionate liberals and conservatives are "bottom up" thinkers in this respect, while colder liberals and conservatives tend to be "top down" thinkers.

    Conservatives are just as likely to treat individuals as tokens as liberals are; they just tend to focus their labeling on culture war issues, while liberals tend to focus their labeling on social spending. This makes liberals sound as if they don't respect individuals, but which demographic is more likely to insist that non-Christians play Christian, gays and lesbians play straight, and ethnic minorities play white? Which demographic is more likely to insist on traditional gender roles for men and women, the ultimate reduction of human beings to tokens?

    Politics can be a heartless business; it paints us all in broad strokes because none of our individual votes matter as much as the votes of our demographics. This is necessary and not particularly evil, but we need to remember not to mindlessly play our parts. The best way to affirm individualism is to act like an individual.

  14. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I think that there's a basic difference between emphasizing individual responsibility and emphasizing social-causation and hence the need for fundamental social-change.

    I'm not a combatant in anyone else's "culture war". And I have absolutely no fondness for the religious-right. Frankly, they scare me to death.

    Nevertheless, I think that your examples do support my argument. In the eyes of the religious-right, people need to make a personal decision for Christ. People make the decision whether or not they will (in the religious right's eyes) pervert themselves with sexual immorality.

    If you make the wrong choices (as they define them), they will judge you precisely because it's all a matter of your personal choice.

    Compare that brittle conservative judgementalism to all of the race-class-gender theory and to the radical cultural-criticism that seeks to locate the causes (and the cure) of personal problems in something much larger than people themselves. What's required is social change!

    These are extreme and perhaps not very pretty examples, but they do illustrate my point.

    My assertion is that compassionate conservatism follows conservatism in identifying individuals as the ones with ultimate responsibility for their own lives, follows conservatives in seeing the locus for life-change in personal-transformation rather than in system-transformation, but seeks to offer people greater opportunities to do something constructive with their lives, rather than hitting them in the head with a stick when they don't.
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Re: Re: What is a compassionate comservative?

    Why do those who do not like Bush FAIL to understand our economy suffered due to 9/ll?

    Bush did not lose jobs, 9/11 did.

    Actually the President has little to do with job creation.

    The private sector creates jobs.

    Economics 101.

Share This Page