As hard as it is to lose, I, like many other conservatives, understand that it was time for the GOP to lose.
They have long since strayed from the small-government policies that made the Republican Party the home of so many conservatives. I have been clear about that on this blog for a while now, even at times saying that I no longer felt like a Republican or, as VDB put it, that the Republicans are Butt-Ugly.
Granted, I rallied in the end and voted for the GOP candidates running for House and Senate here – which was more based on my strong dislike of their opponents – and I had a bout of after-election sore-loserness, but the one thing that never changed was that the GOP needed to lose. And lose they did.
So now what?
I think what is clear is that President Bush and the Republican Congress failed on every count to uphold conservative principles.
Unless you include neo-conservatism, which has failed miserably in the eyes of the American people.
I know a few of you older conservatives might take issue with this, but for me, everything the Republican Party stands for was represented in 1994’s Contract with America.
From Wikipedia,
Furthermore, its provisions represented the view of many conservative Republicans on the issues of shrinking the size of government, promoting lower taxes and entrepreneurial activity, and both tort reform and welfare reform.
Under Bush’s Republican Party, we saw government spending grow and government’s scope broadened. Other than the tax cuts, Bush’s domestic policy was no better than the Democrats’ in terms of government spending.
Compassionate Conservatism in and of itself is an oxymoron. Not because, as many progressives say, that conservatives are not compassionate, but rather because the idea that the government should be used as an instrument of forced benevolence, and that the end of compassion justifies the means of expanding government, is inherently antithetical to the conservative ideology.
Furthermore, the term Compassionate Conservative carries with it the implication that ordinary conservatives are somehow uncaring.
Compassionate Conservatism sought to co-opt the tendency of the Democratic Party to solve economic ills with government entitlements. It would seem more true to the conservative cause to instead defend the moral basis of capitalism and espouse what I call Compassionate Capitalism.
Take Bill Gates, the villain in such works of fiction as, “Economic Apartheid in America,” a book which I not only own, but have read several times. Despite being demonized for being among the richest men in the world, he used $106 million of his own money to start the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a charitable organization, which now has an endowment of $31.9 billion that it uses to fund global health initiatives, increase educational opportunities, and combat extreme poverty around the world.
That’s Compassionate Capitalism.
Support for capitalism mustn’t be confused with support for big business, which is another falsehood conservatives would be well-served to clarify. Big Business often champions legislation that includes government subsidies, which leads to increased government spending, and increased regulation, in order to stifle the competition from smaller independent businesses. This type of government intervention is not conservatism.
My only hope is that the Republican Party will look back to the ideas that won over the American public and brought it into the majority – shrinking the size of government, promoting lower taxes and entrepreneurial activity, and reducing government spending.
Instead of moving in this direction.
Update: Speaking of McCain…
Update 2: Okay, if I had taken the time to Google “Compassionate Capitalism,” I would have known that I did not coin that term. There is even a book by that name, written in 1994. Whoops!
Update 3: Make that two books!
November 12th, 2006 at 12:54 am
I remember the Contract with America. My husband and I bought the tape, took a long ride (before children when rides were peaceful), listened to the tape and had the book to as we prepared for Bernie’s “Tell Bernie what you think of the Contract with America” evening in our town. The evening consisted of Bernie’s Republicans-are-evil mantra. Many others in the room joined in the mantra. I got this pit in my stomach knowing that I could not stand it any longer. When there was an opportunity to share, I went up to the front and asked who had read this book, only a few folks raised their hands. One gentleman said, “What book is it?” I told them that I appreciated how it encouraged older folks to continue in the workforce and enabled that to happened easier. Bernie agreed and was forcing him to acknowledge something positive about the Contract with America…then again, I believe it was an AARP forum. One of my first political experiences in Vermont… The demonization mantra was strange to watch. The mind is a terrible thing to lose.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
You thought that you coined the term, “Compassionate Conservatism” ????????
Wholly cow. It was a centerpiece of GW Bush’s campaign in 2000.
It’s all he talked about for months.
You really aren’t educated about the things that you write about.
November 14th, 2006 at 12:50 am
Perhaps you should spend more time actually reading my posts and less time trying to think of ways to insult me. It says “compassionate capitalism,” ie the Bill Gates example above in the post.
And if you read the post, you would have seen it was in contrast to the idea of compassionate conservatism.
It’s all there in the post.
November 14th, 2006 at 2:35 am
It did drive me a bit nuts when Bush mentioned Compassionate Conservativism a few years ago because it did seem to insinuate what you mentioned, Charity. It has, however, also driven me nuts that Republicans rarely use the word “poverty.” The absence of the word makes me feel like it is ignoring poverty’s existence. I believe in the free market and lower taxes and most of all the potential of the human individual. This is hampered when government tries to replace the family unit.
I went to this great class while in Boston which focused on inner city needs. It categorized needs into two categories: primary and secondary. A primary need needs to be met in a primary way. Primary is closer relationally. Secondary would be considered impersonal. i.e. If I need help paying my rent, that is a primary need. If someone works one on one with me to improve my resume and help me add a skill to my skill set, then that is a primary way of meeting that primary need. If I am sent a check (impersonal and disconnected from the person), then that is a secondary method of meeting a primary need.
(I used to attend church in the inner city and worked with inner city children. It was one of the few interracial churches in Boston.)
What has ticked me off about Republicans is that we do not articulate the message that we are the ones that are empowering (not enabling) and therefore compassionate.
November 14th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Yeah, I agree, polimama. I grew up in a poor household, but one that did not encourage me to depend on the government. There is much about the conservative message that is empowering, but it seems that few people who are not already conservative understand that. That is due to a lack of articulation by conservatives in general, and the Republican Party specifically.
November 14th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Note: It has always been my policy to not delete comments, but anyone who posts under the name “Charity” will have comments deleted. Sorry.
November 14th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Now THAT post is why I’ve been reading your blog. Good to have you back. I completely understand your temporary loss of control. It happens to all of us. And now something completely different…
I have a dream. It’s a foolish and unrealistic dream. It’s that a legislature full of Democrats and a Republican Executive could work together to get things done. Lower the national debt. Get us out of Iraq at a reasonable and intelligent pace. Change our worldwide image to something not worth hating.
The skeptic in me tells me not to hold my breath. The dreamer (a much smaller fellow than the skeptic) in me hopes that it might happen.
I have no idea whether or not this formula can work. But I have come to the point that I believe NEITHER political party should hold complete control of our government. It leads to imbalance, excess and corruption – regardless of whether you’re a donkey or an elephant.
So, I hope that the change of control in our Legislature forces a measure of compromise on both parties.
It may be a false hope, but it’s hope nontheless.
Mule
November 15th, 2006 at 2:40 am
Bluemule,
The challenge of the VT state legislature right now is that it is so imbalanced that it is tough to crank out decent policy out of those committees because there are not enough Republicans to provide a healthy iron-sharpening-iron effect. A dear friend of mine was on a committee in the statehouse a few years ago. They spent just about the whole session going over some public service issues that while it seemed to have credibility, the Dems. locked up the time with repetitive testimony in an attempt to embarrass Douglas and what did they ignore….healthcare. And what does everyone campaign on….healthcare?
It needs to be about the people being served and not the egos of politicians. Ego is not a respecter of parties — there are Republicans full of themselves and Dems full of themselves. In the end, the people of VT suffer when those in public service are out to serve their own egos.
Charity, remember the first four words of the Purpose Driven Life from Chapter 1? It is a sentence I always try to remember.
November 15th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Now, how did you know that I have The Purpose Driven Life?
November 16th, 2006 at 1:58 am
The Purpose Driven Life is a NY Times Best Seller…of course, you would have it!
It’s those first four words(five if you count the contraction…I don’t have the book in front of me….)
“It’s not about you.” Inspite of that first sentence, it still became a NY Times best seller.
The only way that Bluemule’s dream can come true is if people look beyond their own ego interests into the interest of Vermont. Politics attracts those who like to listen to themselves talk. Find a true statesperson, and you have a gem worth cherishing!