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.