February 26, 2005

Beyond "Compassionate Conservatism"

If Myron Magnet is correct "compassionate conservatism" is only a different method of statism. In no way is it a reduction in the role of government. He writes,

Implicit in compassionate conservatism was the epochal paradigm shift that is now all but explicit. Taken together, compassionate conservatism's elements added up to a sweeping rejection of liberal orthodoxy about how to help the poor, which a half century's worth of experience had discredited. If you want to help the poor, compassionate conservatives argued, liberate them from dependency through welfare reform; free their communities from criminal anarchy through activist policing; give them the education they need to succeed in a modern economy by holding their schools accountable; and let them enjoy the rewards of work by taxing their modest wages lightly--or not at all.

For the worst-off--those hampered by addiction or alcohol or faulty socialization--let the government pay private organizations, especially religious ones, to help. Such people need a change of heart to solve their problems, the president himself deeply believed; and while a clergyman or a therapist might help them, a bureaucrat couldn't.

The question of if it's even the federal government's role to meddle in welfare, local policing, education, and addiction is not asked by compassionate conservatives. To an extent the debate is over. The public has demonstrated a desire for the welfare state just more effective. Ten years ago the public was turned off when the Gingrich revolution threatened to shut down the Department of Education. Political beatings like that showed Republicans that the public has little desire to really cut federal spending.

Magnet writes that President Bush's Social Security plan is consistent with compassionate conservatism. What he proposes is a forced savings plan. The hand of government isn't lessened by lowering payroll taxes. No, the government just will allow you a choice of how you want your Social Security "contribution" invested. Granted, individuals have more opportunity, but they don't gain any more freedom.

Politicians' role is to get legislation passed and to get re-elected. Hence, they have to go with the flow of public opinion as much as lead. Classical liberals and small government conservatives like myself can hem and haw all we want about weak-kneed pols and RINOs. But should we be surprised that after feeling the public's pulse well enough to get elected they switch gears to oppose public feeling?

The Right has created a marvelous set of institutions to advance the cause in government. But it's only done part of the job. Instead of the relentless analysis of legislation in Washington, D.C. and state capitols we need an campaign to teach the public a love for liberty and limited government. We need to instill into our fellow men and women that private property is the key to economic dynamism; that government programs my help some the taxes used to fund them lessen individual's ability to solve their own problems; that a bureaucrat in Washington had neither the knowledge nor the information to educate a child a thousand miles away.

Let me state that because of present political realities I support much of what the President is advancing. His ideas take the nation closer to the state our Founding Fathers envisioned when they wrote the constitution. Compassionate conservatism is not the end; it's only one step toward the much smaller state I hope to see the U.S. return to.

"The War on the War on Poverty"

[Added to Wizbang's Automated Linkfest.]