Integrity News

This whole idea about “compassionate conservatism” has bugged me for quite a while. Not that I have anything against “compassion” or “conservatism,” but I wonder why the need to put them together?

What is the difference between non-compassionate conservatism and compassionate conservatism? For one it seems that compassionate conservatism allows you to expand the government and allows the government to endorse one charity over another through the handing out of taxpayers’ money. For the record, I support private charity over the government dole, any day of the week. But shouldn’t I have the right to decide to what charities my money goes, rather than have th government tax me and give to oly government-approved charities? Check out this piece from the Washington Post:

Compassionate Conservatism 2.0

Senator John Cornyn from Texas believes in compassionate conservatism. This is from his website:

• I strongly believe that every individual is worthy of respect, and that the traditional institution of marriage is worthy of protection.
• I support providing opportunity for all and removing government limitations on freedom so that every citizen has the chance to realize the American dream.
• Government must provide a “hand-up” for citizens, not merely a “hand-out.” The best gifts government can give to citizens are the ability and skills to improve their own lives.
• I support the reauthorization of our nation’s welfare laws. We must continue to ensure that the neediest Americans receive assistance in caring for their families while they work to achieve independence.

Let’s take a closer look at what the Senator wrote. For starters:

I strongly believe that every individual is worthy of respect, and that the traditional institution of marriage is worthy of protection.

So, every individual is worthy of respect? Including gay and lesbian Americans? Yes. And I agree that the traditional institution of marriage is worthy of protection. But, and this is just a stab in the dark, I bet the Senator and I would disagree with what constitutes respect and how to protect marriage.

For example, when it comes to gay soldiers, is it respectful to tell them to lie because they might make someone uncomfortable? Would it be respectful to suggest to Puerto Rican soldiers that they shouldn’t listen to salsa or reggaeton music because others may not understand the Spanish lyrics and be uncomfortable? Gay soldiers shouldn’t talk about having sex, but telling someone you are a gay person doesn’t mean you have to get into the mechanics of gay sex. And straight and gay soldiers should be held to the same standard - meaning that neither one should be talking about their specific sexual activities from last weekend. That’s called “mutual respect” and would be a heck of a lot more productive than to have a whole group of people lying and pretending about who they are in order to preserve their career.

And protecting marriage opens up a whole can of worms. I don’t want to talk about same-sex marriage, except to say that banning it doesn’t do anything to strengthen traditional opposite-sex marriage. What about no-fault divorce laws? They allow couples to get divorced “just because,” making marriage a temporary thing. Or how about the ease with which one can get married in this country? Ever been to a Las Vegas drive-thru chapel?

One other thing about same-sex marriage, as I think about it. Doesn’t individual freedom include the freedom to join the church of your own choosing? Some churches, such as the United Church of Christ and the Metropolitan Community Churches, as well as individual congregations, support same-sex marriage. So wouldn’t outlawing same-sex marriage, especially through a constitutional amendment, infringe upon the personal freedoms of the members of those churches and congregations?

I support providing opportunity for all and removing government limitations on freedom so that every citizen has the chance to realize the American dream.

Opportunity for all?!?!? Hhmm. So every one who meets the qualifications should be able to join the military. But then the legalists will say that “homosexuality” is a disqualification. If it is truly a disqualification, then shouldn’t they ask on the recruitment forms like they did in the old days? It might even save a little money by not wasting valuable tax dollars training those homosexuals who volunteer to defend our nation.

Government limitations on freedom. Wow! Have you read what the law actually says about gays in uniform? As I have said numerous times, “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” doesn’t accurately describe it. For starters a lot of people believe that a gay soldier can have sex without another consenting adult of the same sex so long as the soldier doesn’t talk about it. Well, that’s not the case. Read the law. The freedom to have sex with another consenting adult is expressly denied to gay soldiers who wish to have sex with consenting adults of the same gender by the current law. Conversely, the freedom of gay civilians to have sex with a consenting soldier of the same gender is denied by the current law. Fortunately for the civilian, there aren’t any negative ramifications.

Government must provide a “hand-up” for citizens, not merely a “hand-out.” The best gifts government can give to citizens are the ability and skills to improve their own lives.

Why must government provide the “hand-up”? Doesn’t that run counter to the faith-based initiatives agenda that compassionate conservatives claim to support? And “government gifts”? What are those? Don’t they work for me? Why should my “employees” give me gifts? And, you know what, I’m proud of my family and my community and that’s where I learned those skills and abilities to improve my own life. Sure, I was employed by the federal government when I served in the Army, but the Army benefited as much from me as I did from it.

I support the reauthorization of our nation’s welfare laws. We must continue to ensure that the neediest Americans receive assistance in caring for their families while they work to achieve independence.

That just goes to show you that today’s compassionate conservatism is nothing but repackaged liberalism. And that’s being generous. Many of our welfare laws do nothing but setup families for failure.

Why not cut taxes across the board - for everyone? That would give poor families more money to spend on the things they need and they wouldn’t have to rely on government checks coming in the mail since their own paychecks would be larger. For those who are in higher income brackets, they would have more money to invest to expand businesses and create more and better paying jobs. Of course, there would be a number of accountants, tax attorneys and IRS employees looking for jobs.

To conclude, beware the conservative who feels he needs to describe himself with the word “compassionate.” Real conservatives already know they are compassionate, even when they are selective in the charities they support. And truly compassionate people don’t need to trumpet their compassion.