The Death Of Compassionate Conservatism
Some of the most memorable and troubling moments of the recent Republican Debates have been the conservative audience’s spontaneous and emotional outbursts. They loudly voiced their belief that those without insurance and without the funds to afford care should just simply die. They literally booed an American soldier, actively serving in Iraq, just because he admitted he was gay. They cheered Gov. Perry’s record of executions, despite the fact that there is some very troubling evidence that at least some of those prisoners may have actually been innocent. Finally, this last Tuesday, they loudly and enthusiastically applauded Herman Cain’s assertion that those who are out of work during this recession have only themselves to blame. These have been the punctuation points in a long narrative of conservative policies and conservative rhetoric that feels increasingly strident, angry and out of touch.
Is this incivility representative of all Republicans or self described conservatives? No, but it is representative of the more active participants in the political process. As a consequence, the Republican presidential candidates are spending more and more time catering to the angry and uncompassionate wing of their party. On issues like immigration, health care, foreign aid, torture, abortion rights, Social Security and LGBT rights, most have taken extreme positions all designed to outdo the other and capture the hearts and minds of the conservative base. It’s not that these ideas are new. All of these issues, with the exception of torture, have been a part of the Republican Party platform for a very long time. However, there has always been a realization within the Republican establishment that you couldn’t win a general election by appealing to the baser instincts of the ideological purists.
For example, it was only twelve years ago that George W. Bush styled himself as a “compassionate conservative”. Besides the fact that being known as “compassionate” couldn’t be bad for any candidate, it adroitly separated Bush from the conservative wing of the party which held some positions that the majority of the American people viewed as extreme, uncompromising and severe. He could get away with this because his evangelical faith and conservative credentials on issues like abortion, guns and the death penalty were beyond question. He could give a “wink and a nod” to the conservative base while still appealing to the moderate independents. He even governed on some issues as a compassionate conservative. His record on HIV and Aids funding in Africa is outstanding. Also, he did try to put through a comprehensive immigration reform package that would have included a path to citizenship for those who have lived here for years. Of course he was also responsible for the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo, the continued marginalization and discrimination of gays and lesbians and he utterly failed to even address the fact that millions of Americans live without proper health care.
Today, the idea of comprehensive immigration reform is political kryptonite for any Republican candidate. Also, could you imagine any of the people on that debate stage Tuesday night suggesting that HIV and Aids funding should be a priority? George W. Bush’s idea of “compassionate conservatism” is dead and now the issues that really drive the conservative agenda are out of the closet and on display for everyone to see. The candidates are currently in the process of proving to the conservative base that they are trustworthy enough to take up those uncompromising positions on abortion, immigration, LGBT rights and health care and actively sell them to the American people. But are the American people ready for a “real” conservative candidate? Are the American people really ready for conservatism without compassion?
