"The modern Republican Party has risen above its insecurities to achieve political success. Ronald Reagan, for example, held an unshakably positive vision of American capitalism. He didn't feel a need to qualify the meaning of his conservatism. He understood that big government was cruel and uncaring of individual aspirations. Small government conservatism was, by definition, compassionate -- offering every American a way up to self-determination and economic prosperity.
Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 because voters no longer saw Republicans as the party of limited government. They have since rejected virtually every opportunity to recapture this identity. But their failure to do so must not be misconstrued as a rejection of principles of individual liberty by the American people. The evidence suggests we are still a nation of pocketbook conservatives most happy when government has enough respect to leave us alone and to mind its own business. The worrisome question is whether either political party understands this."
~ Dick Armey, U.S. House majority leader from 1995 to 2002
"I saw how this moral framework led him to an immediate identification with the dying African child, the Chinese dissident, the Sudanese former slave, the Burmese women's advocate. It is one reason I will never be cynical about government -- or about President Bush."
I have linked to two worthy reads. Is compassionate conservatism a failed idea? Making prescription drugs available at little or no cost to 10 million low-income seniors ... improving average reading scores of fourth graders ... narrowing the achievement gap between white and African-American children ... providing AIDS relief for millions of Africans and compassionate care for millions of orphans ... are these achievements that conservatives truly do not care about?
Are we really a nation of pocketbook conservatives who feel that the most compassionate thing a government can do is leave us alone and mind it own business, as Dick Armey suggests?
I would like to hear some of my conservative readers weigh in.
Warning: comments that veer even slightly off topic will be edited or deleted.
This is a really good question. My answer: no, compassionate conservatism is not dead. However, it is not what will win the elections. The people who benefit from these programs most often think that they are entitled to these government benefits as a matter of right and don't see it as any big deal that conservatives pushed for the measures since Democrats would have done the same thing.
As conservatives, we need to be concerned about the poor. However, we also need to be aware that things like the prescription drug benefit has cost many million dollars more than if we had worked out a non-governmental solution. We need to care, but not use government in the same was as Democrats - providing billions of dollars in unaffordable benefits merely to get elected.
Posted by: BK | November 08, 2008 at 23:34
Thanks, BK, for the thoughtful comment and for getting us started.
In politics, winning is what counts. Losing elections means the other side controls the debate and holds the power to implement solutions.
It sounds like you believe it is a failed idea as a political strategy, but lives on beneath the surface as guiding principles.
The strategy then, as Armey and others suggest, is to not mix charity and politics -- and focus simply on reducing the footprint of government.
Posted by: Mr. D | November 09, 2008 at 06:05
I agree with BK. Government is best when it governs least. Conservative Christians should always sacrifice for the poor and marginalized in society. Making government do that though is often inefficient and not good for both the tax-payer and the recipient. When individuals sacrifice or individuals in a voluntary group sacrifice for the poor, both sides benefit. It isn't simply a bureaucratic handout that breeds complacency amongst the populace. After all, why should I care if it's the government's responsibility to help poor people? This also removes the government incentive to keep these people dependent for electoral purposes. Private charities reasonably desire to 'teach a man to fish' rather than just giving him a fish every day.
I admit that this is a tough answer. I suggest that liberals ought to be more generous with their money rather than make the government enforce generosity. To take personal responsibility for the poor and downtrodden is tough stuff, but shrugging it off on the government makes everyone worse off. Liberals (and 'compassionate conservatives') have their heart in the right place, though I am concerned about their minds.
Posted by: | November 09, 2008 at 20:12
Sorry, the above comment is mine.
Posted by: Ron | November 09, 2008 at 20:13
Making prescription drugs available at little or no cost to 10 million low-income seniors ...
Unfortunately, this didn't stop here. It was extended to all seniors. My father had a great retirement health benefit from his former employer. When Bush extended the prescription benefit to all seniors, Dad's retirement benefit was forfeit and now he is left with taxpayer-funded and inferior benefits.
What starts as a limited benefit becomes an entitlement, then gets expanded. I don't believe that is compassionate. It is just redistribution for political benefit like BK and Ron are describing. I also agree that government charity displaces real charity, where we use our own money not someone else's.
Finally, the overhead imposed by government management is multiples higher than private. So much less of what is "donated" through taxes reaches the intended target. That is a waste of potential resources.
comments that veer even slightly off topic will be edited or deleted.
That's got to be referring to me. So once again, apologies to Mr D and everyone else for my previous off-topic soapboxing.
Posted by: SteveC | November 09, 2008 at 21:57
SteveC,
No apology necessary. Keep coming back please. I learn a lot from reading your ideas.
Mr. D.
Posted by: Mr. D | November 09, 2008 at 22:14
So far, this sounds like a fairly strong endorsement of Armey's argument ...
"He [Reagan] understood that big government was cruel and uncaring of individual aspirations. Small government conservatism was, by definition, compassionate"
Any conservatives out there beg to differ with Mr. Armey?
Posted by: Mr. D | November 09, 2008 at 22:18
In his book Heroic Conservatism, Michael Gerson argues that some Republicans go so far in their desire for limited government that their message becomes "anti-government". In other words, their message becomes one of disdain for government itself. This, ultimately, becomes a type of self-refutation: politicians who disdain the government, and by extension, the very office they want you to elect them to.
Gerson, a compassionate conservative (and Wheaton college alumnus), says the following.
"What does anti-government conservatism offer to urban neighborhoods where violence is common and families are rare? Nothing. What hope does it provide to children in foreign lands dying of diseases that can be treated or prevented for the cost of American spare change? No hope. What achievement would it contribute to the racial healing and unity of our country? No achievement at all. If Republicans run in future elections with a simplistic anti-government message, ignoring the poor, the addicted and children at risk, they will lose, and they will deserve to lose."
Does Gerson have a point? Is a simplistic, anti-government conservatism the wrong message as Gerson suggests?
Posted by: Mr. D | November 10, 2008 at 05:38
It is interesting that in the inner-cities where violence is common, Democratic control has been a constant for the last forty years. One of the government's main responsibilities is the safety of its people. Cracking down on that kind of stuff would be supported by conservatives wholeheartedly. Despite how he annoys me, Rudy Giuliani did just that in NYC.
I agree that the GOP can't run with a simplistic anti-government message. It is not self-evident that small government is better and the candidates should explain to the electorate why this is true. Looking to government to be the activist for the poor and the diseased here and overseas is always inferior to individuals and groups of private citizens playing that role.
Posted by: Ron | November 10, 2008 at 12:33
I wanted to post my thoughts on Mr. D.'s question before reading the comments, so as to be unbiased by them. I always believed that "compassionate conservative" was something of an Orwellian term, or at the very least a misleading one. Most of what was billed as "compassionate conservatism" was either not compassionate or not conservative. In many cases, it was neither.
So to that extent, so-called "compassionate conservatism" is an idea that needs to die.
As to the specific programs you mention, Medicare Part D is a giant mess, because more than anything, it's a hugely expensive massive giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies, with the taxpayers footing the bill. It's a big part of the reason why I've argued that by stripping out corporate protectionism, we could save enough money to provide universal or near-universal health care, for what we currently spend just covering seniors.
NCLB was neither compassionate nor conservative: it attempted to pigeonhole children based on poorly-designed standardized testing -- an idea I'd expect Mr. D. to be vehemently opposed to -- and is one of the largest unfunded mandates in recent memory.
And finally, the AIDS relief for Africa is essentially indistinguishable from liberal programs, apart from the censorship imposed by "compassionate" conservatives.
Editors Note: for those new to the blog, tgirsch blogs at a compassionate conservative blog known as http://www.leanleft.com/.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 10, 2008 at 14:06
Any conservatives out there beg to differ with Mr. Armey?
I have an answer to that question, but since I'm not "conservative," I'll abstain for now. :)
Posted by: tgirsch | November 10, 2008 at 14:30
It's interesting to think of compassionate conservatism as a separate thing to 'normal' conservatism, when I believe it's a different justification for the same thing. Conservatism (in the sense of limited government etc.) can be seen as a good thing because it tends to increase freedom, which is an absolute good in itself (normal conservatism). A separate justification is the economic argument that government is inefficient, so minimizing its role tends to increase efficiency, which in turn makes more money available for 'charity' and similar programs.
So the compassion in conservatism is a matter of attitude, not of policy; implementing a government program such as the prescription benefit is the antithesis of it, because it defeats the conservatism and removes the opportunity to practice that compassion. That Bush pushed it through demonstrates that, in a political sense, he was neither compassionate nor a conservative.
Posted by: Paul | November 11, 2008 at 04:56
Pulled straight from Wiki :
Compassionate conservatism has been defined as the belief that conservatism and compassion complement each other, particularly in opposition to common conservative party platform planks such as advocating laissez-faire economic policies.
A compassionate conservative might see the social problems of the United States, such as health care or immigration, as issues that are better solved through cooperation with private companies, charities and religious institutions rather than directly through government departments. As former Bush chief speechwriter Michael Gerson put it, "Compassionate conservatism is the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself."
Nailing down the most popular meaning for the word "conservative" is tough.
Most seem to trace it back to Edmund Burke's work "Reflections on the Revolution in France" written in 1790. Burke was a fierce critic of the French Revolution and its excesses. He believed in prescriptive rights and what he referred to as "ordered liberty" as well as a strong belief in transcendent values that found support in such institutions as the church, the family, and the state.
That has morphed into conservatism simply meaning "limited government".
Rather than turn this thread into a debate about the meaning of the word, I am more interested in the death of the very recent movement toward "compassionate conservatism".
This is associated with writers like Gerson and Marvin Olasky. I would rather focus our conversation there than on George W. Bush's implementation of it (which Fred Barnes called big-government conservatism).
Compassionate conservative philosophy argues for policies in support of traditional families, welfare reform to promote individual responsibility, active policing, standards-based schools, and assistance to poor countries around the world.
What I would like to know is, is this philosophy as I just defined it, a failed idea?
I already know how the left leaners would answer this question. :) My interest is in learning how my center-right and right leaners would answer it.
Posted by: Mr. D | November 11, 2008 at 09:03
Mr. D:
I am more interested in the death of the very recent movement toward "compassionate conservatism".
See, that's precisely the problem, though. I don't think there was ever any genuine movement toward "compassionate conservatism." It was a rhetorical ploy, but I never saw a sea-change in direction that would indicate a break from past conservatives (with the exception of the neoconservative actions, which are a different matter entirely).
Compassionate conservative philosophy argues for policies in support of traditional families, welfare reform to promote individual responsibility, active policing, standards-based schools, and assistance to poor countries around the world.
With the possible exception of assistance to poor countries, I fail to see how this differs fundamentally from "ordinary" conservatism.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 11, 2008 at 11:54
"It was a rhetorical ploy"
That is the number one complaint I read, especially from left leaners like yourself.
Those on the right see it as "big government conservatism" to use Fred Barnes expression ... so a real movement, but one that amounted to nothing more than Republicans trying to be Democrats ... and doing a lousy job at it.
Perhaps the problem is, as you alluded to, nobody has ever truly tried it ... so the idea lives ... it is just waiting for someone to implement it properly.
Perhaps all the aid to Africa was the closest thing we saw to compassionate conservatism ... but it got lost amidst the other stuff...
Posted by: Mr. D | November 11, 2008 at 12:06
Okay, I will try not to argue over definitions (excellent points, Paul, btw), but the label has been so abused in implementation that I believe, like tgirsch, that it needs to die. I will continue, but first:
•"compassionate conservative" was something of an Orwellian term...
• NCLB was neither compassionate nor conservative
•the AIDS relief for Africa is essentially indistinguishable from liberal programs
•Medicare Part D is a giant mess..., a massive giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies
[corporate welfare is often erroneously associated with conservatism because of Bush.]
I quote the above because of the horripilation (word of the day!) I experience as I agree with tgirsch, even if it is for opposite reasons :).
The problem with CC as you define it, Mr D, is that when you set goals like that for government, the situation quickly becomes one of active intervention to engineer those goals as opposed to "getting out of the way" as others postings have described. I believe that the incentives of being in power are such that it can never be implemented properly as you describe.
To answer your question: I think CC is dead- or at least I HOPE it is, because government intervention and engineering usually backfires with unintended consequences even if it is done to promote conservative values.
With the possible exception of assistance to poor countries…
I agree again, except tgirsch must add “standards-based schools” (read: centralized engineering) to the list of not-Conservative.
I would like to add that assistance to poor countries is very problematic. Poverty in the world is most attributable to despotic governments. However, our government can only provide aid through these sovereign governments- who waste or misappropriate the aid based upon political motivations.
Usually, only NGOs can provide aid directly to people. I think that the Gates Foundation is better suited for AIDS relief.
Posted by: SteveC | November 11, 2008 at 12:37
Thanks for the comments SteveC.
To summarize, Gerson says "Compassionate conservatism is the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself."
SteveC says, this is mission impossible. Any government that tries to encourage provision of the social service will inevitably end up trying to provide the service itself ... it will not be able to refrain itself.
Therefore, you believe CC is a pipe dream and needs to die.
Posted by: Mr. D | November 11, 2008 at 12:47
Mr D - I'd argue that it goes further even than that. If you're a conservative who values limited government your default assumption would be that the government will get the compassion wrong; even if it doesn't end up providing the service, it will end up encouraging things that aren't as good as what the private sector would do on its own.
Assuming, then, that limited government is a core belief of conservatives (though not the only one, as you state above), I think compassion only has meaning as a motivation to believe in conservatism, not as an active thing that you 'do' at all. Now that sounds very worthy to me (if you like that sort of thing), but it differs so much from what we currently see as CC that I'd say CC isn't just dead, it was never alive.
Posted by: Paul | November 12, 2008 at 10:01
I think we're coming to a consensus that "compassion" and "conservativism" are incompatible concepts with respect to the government. (Note, I'm not saying that it's impossible to be compassionate and conservative -- I'm saying it's impossible for government to be both, by definition.)
SteveC:
Horripilation: Great word!
Getting out of the way: The problem I have with this is that it strikes me as pie in the sky. It's true that government intervention often has unintended (and sometimes bad) consequences. However, history seems to tell us that when government truly does get out of the way, chaos ensues, and the worst of human nature starts to rule the day.
This is why I think the far-left philosophy that the government should control virtually everything and the far-right philosophy that the government should control virtually nothing are equally misguided. What's needed, instead, is a balancing act: as much government as needed to maintain order, justice, opportunity, and some modicum of fairness, but no more. I'll be the first to admit that this is easier to describe in the abstract than it is to put into practice, but I still think it's an important point to make.
As an example, we're quickly coming to a consensus among economists that the current financial crisis is owed to too little regulation of the financial industry -- i.e., too little government intervention and oversight -- not too much of those things. [Mr. D: Apologies if this veered off-topic a bit.]
Mr. D:
"Compassionate conservatism is the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself."
I actually don't have a big problem with this, so long as the service itself is, indeed, being provided, and in sufficient measure. Where I have more of a problem with this -- and where self-described "compassionate conservatism" goes wrong, in my estimation -- is when these services come with unacceptable strings attached. For example, in the early years of the Bush administration, they tried to encourage social services that included a religious proselytization requirement, which sets a dangerous precedent, particularly when there's no secular alternative, and especially when those services are funded with tax dollars.
Imagine, for example, the local soup kitchen being run by your city's largest mosque; imagine, further, that they require women to cover their faces and eat in a separate dining room; now imagine that this is being funded with your tax money, and you can see why it isn't just liberals who would object to such measures.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 12, 2008 at 12:04
Paul:
I'd like to point out that "limited government" is really only a core tenet of conservatism when that term is used in the abstract. Generally speaking, self-described conservatives are in favor of limited government with respect to businesses and regulation, and also with respect to providing social services, but generally speaking, they favor much more stringent regulations when it comes to individual behaviors (and, in particular, those behaviors relating to sex). National security, immigration, homosexuality, marriage, abortion, etc., are areas where conservatives generally call for more government, not less.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 12, 2008 at 12:08
We are starting to teeter off topic here and there.
My liberal friends are dominating the discussion here. Any conservative friends care to comment about the questions I posed?
I asked two of my conservative friends in person this same question last night.
One replied, that is not a case of C.C. being tried and found wanting, but more of a case of it never being tried.
The other replied that it amounted to a simple rhetorical stunt ... note: this was a conservative saying this.
We all agreed that defining conservative is a difficult task ... few of us could really define it.
We also shared a common skepticism that because of our electoral system, it is nearly impossible to implement a government that looks like what Gerson and Olasky describe on paper. Our system of getting elected really sets us up for rewarding voters with government payouts (in various forms). Iow, you can't compete with that system and expect to win.
Posted by: Mr. D | November 12, 2008 at 12:25
My liberal friends are dominating the discussion here.
I'll try to shut up now. :)
Posted by: tgirsch | November 12, 2008 at 15:34
tgirsch makes some good points. I would disagree about conservatives wanting less personal freedom though. While we oppose abortion and gay marriage, we very much support 1st and 2nd amendment rights. In the case of abortion, this isn't so much about limiting personal rights but of ensuring the most personal right to the unborn; the right to life. So in that instance, we come down strongly on the side of personal freedom.
I agree with you though on faith-based initiatives. That's another 'compassionate conservative' idea that smacks of violating the 1st amendment. Also, I think it is ultimately bad for the religious institutions involved as well.
Posted by: Ron | November 12, 2008 at 16:47
Ron - it seems, to my leftist ears, that you're saying that conservatives only want to restrict those freedoms that are 'wrong'. You'll be glad to know that this is the same goal liberals have!
In line with tgirsch, I'll do more reading and less talking now...
Posted by: Paul | November 13, 2008 at 03:47
Since the discussion here seems to be dead, I'll pose a related question to Mr. D.: How does Mr. D. reconcile his love of Sarah Palin, famous for particularly nasty and decidedly un-compassionate invective, with his seeming support of "compassionate conservatism?"
Posted by: tgirsch | November 17, 2008 at 17:42
Forget Sarah Palin.
The Republican party is in a shambles. The country wanted change and got it.
Now, we are, for all practical purposes, united under the Democratic party. Republican rule is over and will remain gone for the forseeable future (maybe for good).
It is time for Mr. D to take his compassionate views into the Democratic party and work from within. I am exploring ways to work with other Americans for causes of justice, freedom and compassion.
One cause that has really caught my attention is ending slavery. We can both agree that this is a worthy cause, true?
Are you with me?
Posted by: Mr. D | November 18, 2008 at 09:31
Forget Sarah Palin
Sorry, but I'm not willing to do that. Palin seems to be almost the perfect personification of the sort of cognitive dissonance I see frequently among self-described conservative Christians. With the exception of a couple of carefully-chosen policy positions on key hot-button issues, she is at odds with virtually everything I understand good Christianity to be. So it's clear to me that I'll never understand conservative Christians until I find a way to resolve that apparent conflict.
Now, we are, for all practical purposes, united under the Democratic party. Republican rule is over and will remain gone for the forseeable future (maybe for good).
I remember a time when I felt the same way, in the other direction. After 2004, I was convinced that the Democratic party was dead. This, too, shall pass.
One cause that has really caught my attention is ending slavery. We can both agree that this is a worthy cause, true?
Of course that's a worthy cause. The only reason I hesitate even a little bit here is because I've seen conservative Christians try to use slavery as a proxy for abortion; if we can avoid that particular cheap stunt, I think we can find a lot of common ground.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 18, 2008 at 14:03
"Sorry, but I'm not willing to do that."
Suit yourself. You'll have to find another blog with someone who shares your interest in Sarah Palin. I don't.
"This, too, shall pass."
Perhaps, but the Republican brand has become meaningless ... so it doesn't really matter if it makes a come back or not.
The electoral process is so badly flawed, that it has become pointless to cheer for teams anyway.
"I've seen conservative Christians try to use slavery as a proxy for abortion"
No one is playing games here. I am talking about slavery ... in terms of numbers, about 5 times the scale of what this country had in 1850's.
Posted by: Mr. D | November 18, 2008 at 14:27
I'm late to the party here, but would like to contribute my two cents.
"Compassionate Conservatism" is neither compassionate nor conservative.
First, is there anything compassionate about forcefully requiring one person to be charitable towards another? The one who takes is little better than a common thief, and the one who "gives" has not acted charitably. Is "Compassionate Conservatism" anything more than just another facet of the welfare state?
Second, is the idea of CC consistent with our founding principles? What are those principles and how would one reconcile the welfare state, whether compassionately conservative or traditionally Liberal, with those principles?
Is "I am my brother's keeper" a legitmate philosophy upon which to base government?
Posted by: matt curtis | November 18, 2008 at 21:42
Matt- thank you for once again reminding us of our founding (Classical Liberal) principles of liberty.
Mr.D.
The issue of slavery is a very interesting and difficult one. The difference between slavery now and in the past is that there is no legal sanction or protection for it now as there was in the past. Also, there is no twisted moral justification for it. I would say that it is nearly impossible to find anyone who would openly support slavery as it exists today. It is illegal everywhere.
So, the battle against slavery is won... except that the problem is worse than ever. Why is this? Is it worse than ever? Is the ratio of slave-to-free higher now (doubtful)? Does anyone have any numbers? Clearly the issue is very different now than it was. How we fight it must be radically different. In the past, abolitionists sought to (with some great success) shame civilized society away from the institution of slavery. Now, slavers have neither civility nor shame, and slavery could hardly be called an institution.
My point is that there is no debate on the ethics of modern slavery- only the best way to fight it. Would you argue, MrD, that conservatives are more committed to this fight?
Posted by: SteveC | November 19, 2008 at 11:26
re: CC
Thanks for showing up, Matt! I was hoping you would join the conversation.
As former Bush chief speechwriter Michael Gerson put it, "Compassionate conservatism is the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself."
That does not sound like a welfare state to me. That sounds like moral persuasion.
I agree with you that a welfare state is neither compassionate nor conservative. But I disagree that a welfare state is what Michael Gerson is articulating.
Thoughts?
Steve:
Check out this link :
http://www.mercurynews.com/movies/ci_10956699
After reading that short article, go to this website and spend 20 mins :
http://callandresponse.com/
re: "My point is that there is no debate on the ethics of modern slavery- only the best way to fight it."
I would say the greatest problem is getting people to realize the immensity of the slavery problem today. Many seem to live under the delusion that slavery ended with the civil war. I think if people realized that slavery is not only not over, it is booming.
Where is the public outcry?
Our country seems more interested in yammering about whether they love or hate Sarah Palin than they do in freeing children slaves from a life of torture and tyranny.
Posted by: Mr. D | November 19, 2008 at 11:41
Check out this link(s)
Done
Some comments:
• How can we possibly deal with parents in foreign countries who are willing to sell their children on the black market? Rescue and adoption?
• I like the focus on private action. I think that we have to be careful, though, to know exactly what each particular NGO is doing. It isn't enough to throw money at a rock star who cares.
• Slaves in this country are often "illegals" who fear deportation back to the country from which they were taken in the first place. Is there some sort of amnesty program?
• When government passes superficial "tougher" laws against a black market trade, it is driven further underground where it is more difficult to detect and control. Should we call for a bounty system?
• I appreciate the intentions (raising awareness) of Justin Dillon and the "rockumentary" and the excellent comments by Julia Ormond and Ashley Judd; but Cornel West's philosophical comments about the purpose of music are a mystery to me and seem to border on self-promotion.
• I would be interested to know what the documentarists did about the brothel they exposed. Where were the pimps? Did they call the authorities? Was it simply staged?
Posted by: SteveC | November 19, 2008 at 12:42
Thanks for checking out the links. You asked seven good questions. The justice ministry I support that rescues slaves is called International Justice Mission ( http://www.ijm.org/ )
Maybe you and I can check their web site for some answers.
Posted by: Mr. D | November 19, 2008 at 13:56
"Would you argue, Mr D, that conservatives are more committed to this fight?"
I forgot to address this.
I hear very little outcry from the left, which is ironic given their core commitment to individual liberty.
So far, it seems to be conservatives leading the charge to free those trapped in slavery ... but it seems to me this is one of those issues we should be able to find common ground on.
Posted by: Mr. D | November 19, 2008 at 14:00
Our country seems more interested in yammering about whether they love or hate Sarah Palin
Hey, let's not forget, you started it. :) You might not think the issue of self-professed Christians routinely supporting (seemingly without question) people who behave in decidedly un-Christian ways isn't important, but I'll disagree. But if you want to hide from your previous gushing about Palin, that's your prerogative, and I can certainly understand you wanting to do so. ;)
I hear very little outcry from the left, which is ironic given their core commitment to individual liberty.
I hear very little outcry from anyone at all, unfortunately. We Americans tend to be a provincial lot, and if things that are happening aren't happening here, to us, or to people we identify with, we seem not to care. Look at our inexcusable inaction on the genocide in Darfur for an example. (And that inaction is worldwide, not just in the US.)
I agree that we need to raise awareness of the problem, and take whatever action is prudent to put a stop to it. So what are you suggesting?
Posted by: tgirsch | November 19, 2008 at 22:52
re: "So what are you suggesting?"
Become a modern day abolitionist.
Here's how.
http://www.ijm.org/hottopics/caseworkspotlight-sextrafficking
More ideas here :
http://www.callandresponse.com/
Look, you did a fine job banging the pots and pans on Lean Left about Darfur ( http://www.leanleft.com/archives/category/darfur/ )
Why not add a new category for Abolition and get going?
I can give you 27 million reasons why.
Posted by: Mr. D | November 20, 2008 at 07:18
That is quite a challenge, tgirsch. You up for it?
Lefties have a reputation for ambivalence toward sex crime laws because of their enthusiasm for sexual freedom. Their embrace of the Kinsey reports, which suggest that sex with children could be a good thing, is telling.
Prove this wrong, tgirsch, at least for yourself. :)
Posted by: SteveC | November 20, 2008 at 08:54
Mr. D,
If Mr. Gerson is merely advocating use of the "bully pulpit" to encourage Americans to act charitably, then I would only take issue if the sermonizing detracted from a President's responsibilities. However, I don't think that was all that Mr. Gerson would include within CC. You mentioned "No Child Left Behind", African AIDS funding, and the prescription drug plan. These all involved gov't action and funding, i.e. elements of a welfare state.
I think that we, as Christians, all too often give up on trying personal persuasion in favor of gov't intervention (e.g. Prop. 8). One of the least referenced, but most important liberties our founders recognized was freedom of conscience (out of which freedoms of speech, press, assembly (and others) flow).
Freedom of conscience is, I believe, entirely Biblical and permits the greatest exercise of Christian obligations: to evangelize, to act justly and charitably, etc. Once we seek the force of gov't in implementing such obligations, we exercise power over individuals that God chose not to exercise; we prevent the free choice of acting rightly.
Posted by: matt curtis | November 20, 2008 at 11:51
Mr. D:
I need to read your links and get back to you, but I'm curious as to how it will help to abolish something that's already illegal.
And as for Darfur, we frankly haven't done nearly enough. Heck, we've got two posts on the subject in the past two years. That's part of the core problem, however: there are so many gross injustices in the world, there just isn't time to tackle all of them. Still, some priority reassessment may, in fact, be in order.
SteveC:
Lefties have a reputation for ambivalence toward sex crime laws because of their enthusiasm for sexual freedom.
You're going to have to enlighten me on that. I'm not aware of any sex crime law that I've personally opposed or that anybody I know has opposed. So I'm not buying it.
matt curtis:
Freedom of conscience is, I believe, entirely Biblical and permits the greatest exercise of Christian obligations: to evangelize, to act justly and charitably, etc. Once we seek the force of gov't in implementing such obligations, we exercise power over individuals that God chose not to exercise; we prevent the free choice of acting rightly.
I think that takes things a wee bit too far. Nothing about a government assistance program prohibits people from voluntarily doing even more. The only thing it prohibits, and even then only indirectly, is doing absolutely nothing.
If we relied solely on personal choice to do the right thing, we wouldn't need rules or laws or, indeed, civil government at all. Clearly, there are good reasons to impose rules and laws (I doubt you'd disagree with that), so the only question, then, is where one draws the line.
I don't think it's necessarily Christian or un-Christian to use the civil government as a tool toward the betterment of society as a whole, or the world as a whole. The religion seems to me to be silent on this matter.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 20, 2008 at 16:08
Tom,
I agree that one can always do more than what is required by gov't, but that doesn't change the nature of the compelled act - it is still involuntary and therefore amoral. Moreover, the fact that you can choose to do more, does not change the inherent nature of the taking in the first place; it is forcible and would otherwise be punishable if it was done by your neighbor or a mob.
Which gets us to the crux of the matter. I do agree that there is good reason for gov't and for laws, but you and I differ on what that good reason is. How would you define the proper role of gov't? What determines whether a particular gov't (or a specific gov't action) is legitimate?
Posted by: matt curtis | November 20, 2008 at 16:25
it is still involuntary and therefore amoral.
Well, it's amoral with respect to the individual, but not with respect to society as a whole. Whether a society allows, forbids, or compels slavery (to use Mr. D.'s example) tells us an awful lot about that society, and I doubt you'd consider that factoid to be somehow "amoral."
it is forcible and would otherwise be punishable if it was done by your neighbor or a mob.
Not necessarily. You can have money taken for damages you've caused, for example -- and this can be done forcibly and against your will and is not punishable.
Of course, it seems a wee bit hyperbolic to me to describe things in such a manner. Sure, it's true if you squint at it just right, but it's not a terribly useful way of looking at things. Unless you want to suggest that we should make all taxation for all purposes completely voluntary.
How would you define the proper role of gov't?
To provide a just, civil, and reasonably safe framework for society. To protect the general welfare of the populace. To take reasonable measure to protect -- but not guarantee -- the safety of its citizens.
Now, we could talk about what makes governments and their actions "legitimate" at great length, but I doubt Mr. D has any interest in us engaging in that level of threadjack.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 20, 2008 at 23:30
WARNING: "Threadjack" in progress!
Actually, while this is not precisely on topic, it is directly relevant to the thread. Ultimately, in any debate about whether to pursue Gerson's "compassionate conservatism" or traditional conservatism, you have to answer the question, "What is gov't's legitimate and proper role?"
"Well, it's amoral with respect to the individual, but not with respect to society as a whole."
Tom, this and the remainder of your paragraph above, suggests you believe that morality is a proper basis for gov't regulation of conduct. Many Christians believe this also, and that idea has been behind, among other things, "blue" laws, the defense of marriage acts, and anti-pornography statutes. I don't happen to think that gov't has any business mandating moral conduct, and it is plainly obvious to me that many people simply want to pick and choose which moral precepts they legislate.
Next, the example you cite above (payment of money damages as a legal redress for some wrong committed), does not address my point: there is no moral or legitimate philosophical justification for forcibly taking the fruit of one man's labor to give to another. Yet the welfare state, whether through CC or Liberal (as opposed to classical liberalism) philosophies, does just that.
It's not at all hyperbolic to describe government action as force. Gov't acts through either actual force (e.g. arrest, confiscation, etc.) or the threat of force. When gov't takes the fruit of one man's labor (through taxes) and then turns around and gives some portion of that to another man (because of need rather than some just claim to it (e.g. contract dispute), it does so forcibly or upon the threat of force - don't pay your taxes, go to jail.
Finally, let's address your justification for gov't. First, do you agree that individuals, as a function of being human, should be free to act as they please provided they do not harm another? (Essentially, Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.) Second, do you agree that some individuals will seek to take advantage of others who are weaker or lesser in number? (Cain killing Abel, or King David taking Bathsheeba from Uriah.) Third, do you agree that not every individual aspires to the same thing, and not everyone possesses the same abilities?
Posted by: matt curtis | November 21, 2008 at 10:26
matt:
Because it's Mr. D.'s thread, I'm going to let most of that go. However, this I can't let go:
It's not at all hyperbolic to describe government action as force. Gov't acts through either actual force (e.g. arrest, confiscation, etc.) or the threat of force.
That's not just true of government. That's true of virtually everything. By that definition, all parents raise their children by force, for example. You pay the check at a restaurant because of the threat of force. Everyone does everything because somewhere, deep down, there's an implicit threat of force if they don't play by the rules.
there is no moral or legitimate philosophical justification for forcibly taking the fruit of one man's labor to give to another
Once again, however, that's true of all taxation, not just the relatively small portion that supports "the welfare state." By your standard, there's no "moral or legitimate philosophical justification" for "forcibly" taking my tax dollars and spending them to support a war I abhor, either.
All of which is why I dismiss your "force" line of reasoning as both hyperbolic and simply not terribly useful or instructive.
And while we're at it, by your definition, God forces us to be Christians. Sure, you say we have a choice in the matter, but He does so forcibly or by threat of force - don't become a Christian, go to hell.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 21, 2008 at 15:47
Tom,
First of all, for the most part I don't raise my children by force or threat of force. It's true that I will require them to do some things and prohibit them from doing others, and sometimes I will use discipline or the threat of discipline to do so. But the primary emphasis is to train them so that they do right because it is right, not because of the consequences of doing wrong. Frankly, much of what we must teach our children is to do right even though they may suffer greater consequences than if they were to do wrong. Putting this aside, however, children are not adults and, as parents, we are charged with their training and well-being. Our society recognizes, correctly so, that upon our child reaching maturity he becomes independent.
Next, when we enter a restaurant, we don't do so with any thought to some implicit threat of force - unless we intend to skip without paying the bill or loot the cash register. We go expecting to make a voluntary exchange - no one forces us to do anything unless we try and eat without paying. We don't do these things because of some implicit threat of force, we do them because of an implicit understanding that the food and service offered by the restaurant is theirs to offer and ours to refuse or accept provided we are willing to pay for them. Welfare is an entirely different concept altogether.
Welfare, when practiced by gov't and boiled down to its barest essentials, involves a demand by one person to another for something they have no claim to. Using the example of the restaurant, it is the equivalent of going into the restaurant and demanding to be fed but refusing to pay, or, at the very least, of demanding that the restaurant feed someone else for free, with the threat that if they refuse they will be jailed.
I disagree with you that this is the nature of all taxation. There is undoubtedly force, or the threat of force involved, but taxation for something like national defense involves a taking from everyone for the general benefit of everyone. Returning to the restaurant, it is the equivalent of requiring the owner of the restaurant to pay something for the police protection he benefits from.
Finally, your application of the force argument to Christianity is misplaced. There is no force involved in the decision. We freely choose to either accept His offer of salvation or accept the alternative.
Posted by: matt curtis | November 21, 2008 at 21:10
Matt, and tgirsch I guess,
Tgirsch just does not accept, or does not understand this academically and otherwise universally understood core definition of government. From past arguements, he equates a ballgame referee (voluntary activity) to a police officer (certainly not voluntary). Now he seems to be blind to the fact that a restaurant does NOT force you to pay, the POLICE does after the manager calls them (though they can choose not to).
I would not pursue this any further if I were you.
Posted by: SteveC | November 21, 2008 at 21:19
Matt,
"taxation for something like national defense involves a taking from everyone for the general benefit of everyone."
Actually it's taking from some group of people for the possible benefit of some, possibly overlapping, group of people. At a guess I'd say that all taxation can be characterized this way - whatever it is that is being paid for, there will always be some people who pay so little tax that they essentially make no contribution, and some who would be better off if the goal of the taxation hadn't been enacted.
"Finally, your application of the force argument to Christianity is misplaced. There is no force involved in the decision. We freely choose to either accept His offer of salvation or accept the alternative."
Isn't that what government does? My taxes aren't collected by a man with a gun. I choose to pay taxes or accept the alternative, in this case forcible imprisonment (which I think is preferable to burning in eternal hellfire, on balance).
Posted by: Paul | November 23, 2008 at 02:55
matt:
I'm afraid your reply is less than compelling. When "the alternative" is eternal damnation, that's pretty clearly a threat of force. Similarly, whatever your intentions are in raising your children the way you do, when you ask/tell them to do something, there's an implicit "or else," and that or else is a threat of force of some kind. That's the point. Sooner or later, force of some sort is implied no matter what you're talking about, which is why I find the "government = force" argument to be less than compelling.
Otherwise, what Paul said.
SteveC:
See above. I don't deny that force is the government's ultimate tool to maintain order, but as noted above, that's true of pretty much everything, and not just government. My only point is that equating government regulation to "forcing someone to do something at the point of a gun" ignores several important layers of abstraction in between, and that similar things could be said of all human interactions, dating back to the first time some caveman sharpened a stick.
Bottom line: whether something is backed by threat of force isn't terribly relevant, because at the end of the day, everything is.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 24, 2008 at 15:06
Tom and Paul,
I suspect that the real problem you have with the "gov't is force" premise is that you really don't want to acknowledge that welfare payments are really just an elevated form of highway robbery.
Frankly, your assertion that ultimately everything comes down to force or the threat of force is patently false. Presumably, neither of you were drafted into your current job. You voluntarily agreed to exchange your labor for a paycheck from your employer. When you went to lunch today, you chose whether to go, where to go, and what to eat - all without the least implication of force. Wherever you did eat, you voluntarily decided to exchange your money for the meal provided - no threat of force or actual force involved.
Your employer had no authority to require you take the job he offered (up until the time you voluntarily signed a contract), and the restaurant owner had no power to require that you eat at his restaurant.
On the other hand, I have to pay taxes. The choice I have is to pay the taxes or go to jail (or pay a fine). If a majority votes to take 50% of my income, I have to pay it or I will go to jail. If an armed robber demands, "Your money or your life", I have to hand over my wallet or risk death at his hands. Contrast this latter situation to the Salvation Army worker who asks me to make a donation - I can choose either to donate or not without any fear of force.
With respect to eternal life in Heaven or in Hell, I have the choice to choose. As I stand at the cross roads, I can take the left fork or the right fork. I cannot be made to take one or the other - I will merely have to live with the consequences of choosing the wrong road. Having started down the one road, I cannot be forced to the other.
Finally, I think it would be helpful to this discussion if you answered the questions I posed a couple of posts above. The questions and answers are relevant to whether "compassionate conservatism" should fail or be rejected.
Posted by: matt curtis | November 24, 2008 at 16:21
matt curtis:
I suspect that the real problem you have with the "gov't is force" premise is that you really don't want to acknowledge that welfare payments are really just an elevated form of highway robbery.
Gee, I wasn't aware that in highway robbery, I got to vote for a representative who would help decide whether or not robbers would go out on the highway. Of course, now that you mention it, I see how the analogy is utterly bulletproof! :)
Frankly, your assertion that ultimately everything comes down to force or the threat of force is patently false.
OK, not absolutely everything, but all rules and order do.
The choice I have is to pay the taxes or go to jail (or pay a fine).
How is that different in principle than the choice to become a Christian or go to hell? Your analogy falls apart because if you decline salvation, there IS a nasty punishment that awaits. That you can't see that as a threat of force to me shows willful blindness. Because it's God who's threatening the force, and because you've already chosen the non-hellfire path, that somehow makes it all okay.
Further scuttling your analogy from the other side, there are people who successfully (and illegally) avoid paying their taxes for years. Which would be very hard to do if they were being forced, at the point of a gun, to pay their taxes. And even when caught, many of them settle for pennies on the dollar.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 25, 2008 at 10:07
Tom,
Your inclusion of the vote doesn't support your assertion nor refute mine. The highway robber uses force or the threat of force to take from someone else something to which he has no just claim. Similarly, with taxes collected for the purpose of welfare payments, the gov't takes by force (withholding) or the threat of force (fine or imprisonment) from one individual and gives to another something to which the second person had no just claim. Frankly, I fail to see the distinction between being robbed by one person or being robbed by a mob (i.e. a tyrannical majority).
Please explain why you apparently believe that one man taking the fruit of another man's labor by force is rightly punished, but that it is okay for the members of a democratic majority to take from one for their own benefit.
(Incidentally, I note that you still have not answered my previous questions.)
Finally, with respect to the application of this argument to Christianity, much of our disagreement appears to come down to differing understandings of Hell and man's choice. Christians generally believe that because of our sin we are condemned to Hell. Further, we believe that we are incapable of being without sin - all have sinned. We are essentially born on the road to Hell and the choice we are confronted with is whether to accept God's gift of salvation and take the other road. Our choice to follow God and accept His mercy involves no force or threat of force. We can freely choose to accept or reject it. Hell is a consequence of our sinfulness, not the consequence of a refusal to accept God's free gift.
Posted by: matt curtis | November 25, 2008 at 11:10