Compassion and Conservatism

I’ve been thinking about the “compassionate conservative” mandate that President Bush used to win election in 2000. Like campaign promises everywhere, it withered as soon as the election was determined. We also know that traditional conservatism – in terms of smaller government, individualism trumping the state and fiscal prudence – no longer exists in the Bush Administration and much of the Republican Party. But what about the compassion?

Since traditional conservatism in the current administration has been trumped by social and religious conservatism, one would think that this administration would be more compassionate than most. Compassion denotes a strong sense of ethics, and President Bush is a born-again Christian who has repeatedly noted the War on Terror as a battle of good against evil, thus placing the U.S. as the force of good. Ethics is a highly subjective area, but by the repeated use of the compassionate conservative mandate, the recurring use of religious themes in his work and the growing adherence of his party platform to a theocratic base the president deserves to be held to the highest of ethical standards. His power, if anything, compounds this scrutiny.

The President often casts his decisions in a moral framework. So far he has vetoed just one bill (stem cell research) and is threatening a veto on another (increasing funds on children’s health insurance, funded by a 61 cent tax on cigarettes). He vetoed the stem cell bill by saying it “crossed a moral boundary…if this bill were to become law, American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos.” His threatened veto of the Children’s Health Bill (SCHIP) is due to “expanding (government) health care through the SCHIP program - a huge tax increase for the American people.”
It is difficult to determine the compassion in those actions. The benefits of stem cell research are well-documented, and Bush’s concern for the embryos is not without merits. But as noble as that is, how does the respect he holds for the human life in embryos contrast with the innocent human life that has been destroyed through the war we started in Iraq? Or the numerous felons who were executed on Death Row when Bush was governor?

There is a serious disconnect in the president’s compassion and logic here. I’m not saying that all human action must follow a logical or utilitarian pattern, but the President’s action and reasoning deserves our judgment, particularly by his insistence on morally framing his decisions. And as I’ve said before, morality and ethics are not interchangeable. The same can be said for the health care veto. Wouldn’t a true compassionate and ethical person do what was necessary to increase funds for children’s health care? Especially one that drew its own source of funding?

More of the president’s actions also show his platform of compassion (and conservatism) to be on shaky ground. Consider the compassionate, moral and ethical implications of the following actions:

· Suspending habeas corpus for prisoners, and instructing the attorney general to find a way to make it pass Constitutional muster
· Endorsing torture as an acceptable interrogation technique
· Cutting scores of social program budgets, especially in the first term, that would most benefit those who need them
· The 2001 tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest Americans most (and the so-far unsuccessful attempt to abolish the Estate Tax), although the wealthy have little need for additional income
· Endorsing free trade, then continuing subsidies for numerous industries like steel and agriculture so developing countries cannot compete in American markets
· Relaxing scores of environmental laws and mandates, which will have detrimental impact on the climate for generations and force billions to fix or alleviate
· Not being forceful enough to try and stop the current holocaust and genocide occurring in Darfur

If anything, reviewing these actions should certainly make one question not only the president’s compassion and morality, but just how deep “moral values” and religious compassion run in the dwindling number of core Bush supporters. It is a deeply theocratic force that has appointed itself the judge of morality and acceptability in the Republican Party. Is that the compassion and values the GOP wants?

I’m sure President Bush truly believes he is doing the right thing, and does not wish to cause undue harm with his actions. And some of his actions, such as dramatically increasing AIDS funding to Africa, does pass the compassion and ethical test. And while he has not done much on the Darfur genocide, it is already far more than Bill Clinton ever did in Rwanda. But by presenting himself as the defender of good and repeatedly using morality and religion to make his case, President Bush – more than any other President before him – deserves to have his actions judged by how moral and compassionate they are in the world around him. Because of this, his actions need to be judged by how his moral philosophy is weighed against its consequences.

The Democrats Still Don’t Get It

Did you fall asleep yesterday watching the Democratic candidates give canned answers to original questions submitted by ordinary citizens through YouTube videos? Don’t worry, you were not alone.

Once again, an upcoming Presidential election is playing right into the Democrats’ hands, and once again they’re ready to fumble the ball at the goal line. The frontrunner has sky-high negative and unfavorable ratings among the independents who decide the election. The guy in second has passion, money and is the people’s choice but is unloved by the party insiders and diehard liberal partisans that control the party, and can’t summon the courage to knockout the leader. None of the other candidates has a chance.

And once again, the Democrats are trying to win an election on issues and intellect. It’s noble, but you’d think enough presidential losses on that platform would get them to reconsider. When you’re working with a population that is materialistic and image-driven as the United States is, you’re not going to win an issues campaign. When you’re working with a mass media that’s married to soundbites and values catchy words and easy solutions to complex problems (which the media will never fully investigate), you need to adjust your messaging. It’s Political Marketing 101, which the Republicans have down pat. It’s a long way to Election Day 2008, but I’m betting the Republicans will have a better message more attuned to the people who follow Anna Nicole Smith and Paris Hilton instead of our soldiers in Iraq or Anderson Cooper – and these are the people who decide elections in this country.

I’m certainly not saying this is fair or correct, but this is the way it works. The Democrats are like Lisa Simpson, vainly arguing for what is right and logical to an oblivious audience composed of Homer Simpsons. Does Lisa ever win those arguments?

Here’s case study number one. John Edwards, he of the three-figure haircuts and 6,000 square foot mansions, has made poverty his top campaign issue, still sticking to the “Two Americas” theme that didn’t work for him last time. Obama is also speaking directly to the poor. But poverty isn’t even a top issue among Democratic voters. Furthermore, polls show over and over again that poor people are the least likely to vote. Poverty is certainly an important issue, but has it helped Edwards climb in the polls?

Why don’t Democrats make a simple adjustment to something like, “There is no longer a middle class in this country. There is an upper class and an underclass, and the underclass is growing too fast. As president, I’m going to do everything possible to help your children get the education and every opportunity they can to become rich and live the American Dream.” That gets it out of the poverty angle, which everyone ignores and makes it into an easy-to-understand mainstream speech that people will pay attention to. The Republicans have been great at this spin, and the Democrats need to fix this.

And here’s case study number two. Dick Polman says everything here much better than I could. Even in its current doldrums, the one place Republicans still trump Democrats is on defense and national security, and no matter what happens in Iraq that will still be our number one issue next fall. The key here is what Polman labels “the gut-level issues,” and gut level issues are always won by emotion and trust. Not a single candidate said anything like this last night. That will not go unnoticed by the GOP.

Bill Clinton was the one successful Democratic presidential candidate in my lifetime (I still regard Jimmy Carter as an anti-Watergate fluke) and he won with successful gut-level appeals to voters, backed by a strong likeability factor. If the Democrats are going to nominate another Clinton with none of her husband’s likeability, charisma or ability to capture gut-level, emotional appeals that work with Independent voters, they will never capture the White House.

More Info: An interview of Republican pollster and consultant extraordinaire Frank Luntz, who gets it and has helped the Republicans win election after election (except last year). He is the answer to "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

Turning the Tables: Let’s Praise Massachusetts’ High Cost of Living

I’ve devoted – and will devote in the future – deserved scorn to Massachusetts’ high cost of housing, taxes and march toward gentrification. I chose to live here after graduating college in the early 1990s, and could not afford to do the same today. The Commonwealth’s high cost of living has driven scores of middle class families west of Route 495 or out of the state altogether and it is becoming increasingly hard for families with less education to remain here.

But while I wasn’t born here, perhaps I am becoming a jaded New Englander who only sees the glass half empty. There is a bright side to all this. Massachusetts would not be moving into the upper echelon of pricing, rents and cost of living unless it was a highly desirable and attractive place to live. The Commonwealth has continually reinvented itself over the centuries – from maritime shipping to industrial manufacturing and technology hub – and may be doing so yet again with a strong biotech push, buttressed by traditional Massachusetts pillars like financial services and defense.

For decades the most expensive places to live in America – New York, San Francisco, Southern California and Chicago – could cost what they wanted without reservation because people would pay a high premium to live, work and shop there. It’s basic supply and demand. It is not a complete negative that Boston may be entering into the elite status of these cities. The transformation of the greater metropolitan area has been remarkable over the last 15 years, and prices and rents would not be rising unless Boston was considered an attractive and successful place to live and work.

You can look at two places – Kenmore Square and the former Combat Zone – for a perfect example of what Boston has become. When I came to Boston, Kenmore Square was a dodgy area at best, and the Combat Zone was best avoided altogether unless you wanted a prostitute or drugs. Today the Combat Zone is no more – just two strip bars remain, hidden in alleys. That part of Washington Street is home to Chinese restaurants and the new Ritz Carlton Hotel. Kenmore Square, once home to the legendary Rathskeller and Narcissus nightclubs and greasy spoons like Pizza Pad and Charlie’s, now sports four-star hotels (Hotel Commonwealth) and restaurants (Great Bay). Yes, the neighborhoods are far less interesting and the rents there are now sky-high, but that’s another blog posting. Today’s point is Boston gains far more recognition and revenue from being a high-end destination, and that is better for the city and state as a whole. The same scene repeats itself in places from South Boston to the South End.

And if Boston and Massachusetts have become places where the rich thrive, it’s also because we have developed a high-skilled, knowledge-based economy. Unlike the shipping and manufacturing trades, finding work in industries like biotech, finance and health care requires a college degree and an old-fashioned Puritan work ethic. Did the middle class leave Boston behind or did Boston leave them behind? Perhaps the answer is both.

It appears that the Massachusetts of the 21st century has evolved and innovated into a metropolis that attracts the brightest and the wealthiest. That is quite an accomplishment. With such a strong crop of universities turning out knowledge workers, strong funding and networks help entrepreneurs and the current national leaders in medicine, health care and finance continue driving the economy upward. You could even argue that the serious problems caused by the high cost of living are problems that places like Wyoming and Alaska would be happy to have.

More Info: MassINC's Report on New Skills for a New Economy

How Boston has Continually Innovated to Drive its Economy

Some Lamenting for the Old Kenmore Square

Ted Nugent Just Says No

You gotta love it when Ted Nugent attacks hippies in The Wall Street Journal. If you don't have a subscription, here's the best part:

(1967) climaxed with the Monterey Pop Festival which included some truly virtuoso musical talents such as Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin, both of whom would be dead a couple of years later due to drug abuse. Other musical geniuses such as Jim Morrison and Mama Cass would also be dead due to drugs within a few short years. The bodies of chemical-infested, braindead liberal deniers continue to stack up like cordwood...I often wonder what musical peaks they could have climbed had they not gagged to death on their own vomit.

The 1960s, a generation that wanted to hold hands, give peace a chance, smoke dope and change the world, changed it all right: for the worse. America is still suffering the horrible consequences of hippies who thought utopia could be found in joints and intentional disconnect.

The Motor City Madman goes on to blame hippies for the rising rates of divorce, abortion and crime. Sure, it's funny. But it would be more convincing coming from someone whose musical career didn't peak with "Cat Scratch Fever" and "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang."