Two Ships Passing in the Night: A Call for Compassionate Conservatism
Back in February, the Wabash Conservative Union hosted Dr. Burton Folsom from Hillsdale College to lecture on his most recent book New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy has Damaged America. The lecture was a nice summary of the conservative position on the government-versus-free-market debate. But what got me thinking was a conversation I had with Professor Warren Rosenberg from the English department before the event. “Without the New Deal, my mother’s family might have starved to death,” he told me. “Roosevelt’s job programs and social security kept my mother’s family—8 people—eating and with a roof over their heads.” Of course, this general line of argument that criticizes the conservative position for its lack of compassion is not a novel one and is used often in the political arena. However, in talking to Professor Rosenberg I was confronted by someone whom I respected with a near first-hand account of the human dimension of social justice programs, and it was something that I could not ignore.
The underlying assumption held by many people is that the New Deal was undeniably good from a humanitarian perspective and that to oppose the New Deal is to oppose the poor in favor of saving the rich a few pennies. If you listened to Dr. Folsom’s talk with this assumption in mind, you would have heard little that would change your mind. While Dr. Folsom made some important points, he never directly claimed that those living in poverty were worse off because of the New Deal programs. He focused instead on the politics and inefficiencies that plagued the system. To be sure, Dr. Folsom’s points were important and valid in their own right, but they did nothing to convince me of the issue Professor Rosenberg had emphasized. Dr. Folsom was arguing on a different plane and answering a different question.
This is one of the problems with our political climate. The two sides of the aisle debate on totally different levels. We as conservatives would do well to recognize this fact and remedy it. Instead of merely arguing at the level of small-government, fiscal conservatism, we ought also to meet the liberals at their own level, for nobody can refute the desirability of what they often advocate—feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and insuring the uninsured. The burden of proof is on conservatives to show why liberal social justice programs will not meet these goals and why conservative ideals will. Right now, however, this sort of “compassionate conservatism” seems to be lacking in the debate. We can do better.
In addition to Dr. Folsom’s example of the New Deal, let’s consider as a second case study the recent healthcare debate. The voter in America could take one of two positions in the debate and be well-represented: he could have supported the healthcare bill so as to make life easier on those who live in poverty, or he could have opposed it in an effort to keep as much of his hard-earned money in his pocket as possible. To be concise, he could have chosen to be a stingy conservative or a generous liberal. These seemed to be the only two options, considering the rhetoric of the past several months. Thus, the compassionate person only had only one political outlet: the Democratic social justice agenda.
Conservatives rarely answer the questions raised by the liberals who ask, “What about the poor? The homeless? The uninsured?” They essentially blow off the question. “Who cares about the poor? The only thing I’m concerned with is whether my children are going to have to foot the bill for this irresponsible spending!” There are, however, conservative answers to many of these questions that are not quite so crass.H One argument says that government-run social justice programs end up hurting the poor because they become controlled by a system of politics and bureaucracy that are motivated by vote-winning instead of true compassion. Also, there is another conservative argument that says that any dollar the government does not demand in taxes is a dollar that can be given to private companies, charitable foundations, and churches that use the money much more efficiently than the government does. However, these two arguments always seem to lie on the fringes when conservatives debate such issues. Dr. Folsom did point out the alarming political maneuvers that characterized many of the New Deal programs, but he never tied it directly to the question of social justice. Also, we consistently hear the argument, “Higher taxes hurt small businesses!” But only occasionally do we hear the afterthought thrown in to appease the moderates, “Oh, and by the way, this also increases unemployment, which hurts the poor.” Let’s turn the afterthought into the main argument. If we want to have a true debate with the left, we have to at least challenge their ideas directly instead of skirting around them.
There are two essential things that rhetoricians always drill into your head concerning debate style. First, a good debate has two parties addressing the same question. And second, the winning debaters answer all questions brought up by their opponents. Our nation’s debate on social justice issues meets neither of these criteria. Republicans generally work to answer the question of how to maintain the status quo and how to protect the right to property, while Democrats work to solve the problem of helping the poor. Thus, when Democrats put forward a plan to help the poor, Republicans answer by showing how it will hurt the rich. The two parties are, in essence, two ships passing in the night. They do not confront each other’s arguments head-on. Republicans and conservatives need to stop this and learn to debate the neglected doctrine of compassionate conservatism. Only by attempting to address the issues raised by the advocates of social justice programs can conservatives expect to be a constructive force in the debate instead of simply naysayers. There may never be such a thing as a bleeding-heart conservative, but perhaps we can avoid the accusation of being stone-hearted.
Related posts:
