Many conservatives are often forced to answer the question “why don’t you care?” or some similar inquiry. More often than not, the accuser simply avoids the questioning route all together and simply states, “you have no compassion.”
Thanks in large part to the media, the left has become the party of compassion, while the right is a collection of cold-hearted individuals. What seperates the two sides and what role does compassion play for either?
Recently, I had a beloved college professor die (I blogged about it here). She was a die-hard Democrat, meaning she and I disagreed on most political issues. Nevertheless, I had a deep respect for her and I understood the reasoning behind her stances – compassion.
She believed the best way to right many of society’s wrongs was through government intervention. The answer to education, poverty, healthcare, etc. was a more hands-on role by the federal government, in other words, more money spent by the federal government.
I never doubted her heart, but I did (and still do) doubt the overall effectiveness of the liberal Democratic mindset. I never questioned her compassion and I don’t believe she ever questioned mine. We just saw compassion in different ways.
In my reasoning, it is ineffective in the long run to involve the federal government in issues of charity and compassion. Inevitably, they waste as much money as they properly spend. Case in point, the recent fiasco over post-Katrina spending. The same ones who screamed the loudest for the government to do something fast are the ones wondering how this waste could have happened. You have much less waste and much more responsibility from non-profit groups.
Governments by nature expand their roles to larger than originally intended. When first established welfare was set up to be a safety net to catch people and give them a way to rebound, looking for a new job. Now, people live their entire lives on the program, never venturing beyond the pitiful realm of government assistance. Those people have been hamstrung by the very program that was designed to help them.
The old proverb is still true – “Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.” Merely passing out free “fish” does nothing for the individual. They take it and expect the freebies tomorrow and the day after for the rest of their lives. You have effectively removed all drive and ambition from them.
In my view it is ultimately not true compassion when you are using someone’s money. Many liberals (like my professor) would give you the shirt off their back and are tremendous individual givers. To me, that is true compassion – giving of yourself. It is much easier to simply promise that the government (other taxpayers) will provide you with what you need/want, than to become involved yourself.
Conservatism is all for compassion and helping people in their time of need, but it is not for forcing by law other people to help with their money. It is easy to say what the rich should be doing with their money. “They don’t need it. They should give it to someone else.” Regardless of how much they have, their money is not mine and I should not have the right to tell them where to give it.
Even the majority of poor Americans have huge amounts of expendable income when compared with the poor of other nations. What if a poor African had the right to force you to give up eating meat because all he has is rice or wheat? What if a poor Indian had the right to force you to give up your home because his family doesn’t have one?
Maybe we should consider eating less meat or living in a smaller home in order to give more to the poor around the world, but should someone else have the right to force us to do so? Can it be considered compassion or charity when you are forced to do it?
These are some of the reasons why I am a conservative and not a liberal. It is not because I have no compassion for the poor, the sick, the homeless, etc. My compassion is merely directed in a different form. I would rather donate as an individual or through a non-profit organization than through the government. I would rather give sacrificially myself than expect others to do it through the tax code.
I do not doubt the compassion of liberals. I doubt the effectiveness of their proposals. I would ask the same of those who disagree with conservatives. You can disagree with my methods and ideas, but do not doubt or question my compassion or my heart.
That is one of the greatest lessons I learned from my professor. It is entirely possibly to disagree with someone on virtually every issue and still have a respect for them.
Many conservatives are often forced to answer the question "why don't you care?" or some similar inquiry. More often than not, the accuser simply avoids the questioning route all together and simply states, "you have no compassion."
Take the stem cells, for example. Conservatives like Bush, have more compassion for a clump of stem cells than the people who need cures from stem cell research. Anyone who believes destroying stem cells is tantamount to murder is… I want to say stupid but I'll leave it at ignorant.
A classic example of liberals having an acute ignorance of the issues important to conservatives.
How much do you know about embryonic stem cell research? Do you know that more cures and progress has been made through adult stem cell research, which does not involve the destruction of an embryo? ESCR has brought very little, if any, real hope of cures.
Did you know that Bush was the first President to actually allow for embryonic stem cell research? He merely limited the scope of it and did not allow for federal funding beyond a certain point (the destruction of more embryos)
There is no ban on stem cell research, not even embryonic stem cell research. We have embryonic stem cell lines that we can do research on right now. There are 22 self-perpetuating cell lines that have been developed and about fifty more that could be developed. Do you ever wonder why we don’t see people beating down the doors for those lines?
And just as a preemptive strike against an old argument about the contamination of the lines: Geron CEO Tom Okarma recently told Wired News, “the stuff you hear published that all of those lines are irrevocably contaminated with mouse materials and could never be used in people—hogwash. If you know how to grow them, they’re fine.”
But this post wasn’t about embryonic stem cell research, it was about both sides being able to respect one another with out name calling or insulting. Guess that went out the window in the first comment.
Aaron,
I mean, the issue here is fairly clear: liberals, and Democrats, care about all sorts of people. Conservatives, and Republicans, care about far fewer: Christians and the rich. That’s fine, but it means that my side is clearly morally superior. So, we’ve got that going for us…
Clearly Sam clearly.
You side stepped the issue like a slippery politician. Conservatives like Bush have more compassion for a clump of stem cells than the people who need cures from stem cell research. That's conservative compassion for you!
I addressed your post directly with current events. I can't respect an opinion that equates a clump of stem cells to a human being. It's absurd. I'm calling a spade a spade when I say such an opinion is abjectly ignorant, not compassionate.
It is entirely possibly to disagree with someone on virtually every issue and still have a respect for them.
I did read your post but your words ring hollow to me.
This is what you sound like to me.
http://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2006/07/19/160/
Anyone who reads both my blog and Aaron at two or three . net will know that were pretty much at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Im very much a liberal, and hes a self-described conservative. But his post today entitled &#…
Okay Aaron, I was kidding around.
BUT, it should be noted that while conservatives allegedly support the poor, they don't seem to support a higher minimum wage, despite the fact that nobody loses jobs when minimum wages are increased.
BUT, it should be noted that while conservatives allegedly are pro-life, they thirst for executions of criminals, and they refuse stem-cell research for people that are actually living and breathing.
BUT, it should be noted that while conservatives are allegedly small government, they seem to have little objection to allowing our government to seriously consider putting anti-gay amendments into the Constitution.
I'm sorry Aaron, but there's little evidence that conservatives and Republicans actually care about anybody other than Christians and the rich: that's why the majority of legislation is written to benefit those two groups. The rest of us? Well, your side is constantly telling us to go to hell. And I'm sorry, that isn't compassionate.
they don't seem to support a higher minimum wage, despite the fact that nobody loses jobs when minimum wages are increased.
They do this for two reasons. One, they believe in supply side and demand-based economics – if you force companies to pay more, they will just hire less. This may or may not be borne out by the facts, but that is their model. Second, I agree with you – conservatives are often so business friendly that they don't care about a living wage that would help people who want to work.
I am not sure how I feel about raising the minimum wage across the board. Perhaps we should leave that to the states and their own economies.
while conservatives allegedly are pro-life, they thirst for executions of criminals, and they refuse stem-cell research for people that are actually living and breathing.
They thirst for justice – some Catholics are typically "consistently pro-life", but being for the protection of the innocent unborn, while wanting to mete out just punishment to killers is also a consistent stance.
With regard to stem cells, I think that conservatives (errantly) think that embryos are humans, and that embryonic stem cell research is tantamount to human experimentation. Their argument is not totally without merit, but of course, I take a more liberal stance on this (not much more liberal ;)
while conservatives are allegedly small government, they seem to have little objection to allowing our government to seriously consider putting anti-gay amendments into the Constitution.
Being for small government doesn't mean being for NO government – some things should be legislated, others not. Actually, legalizing gay marriage might increase the burden on government ;), making it "larger" anyway.
there's little evidence that conservatives and Republicans actually care about anybody other than Christians and the rich:
Nonsense. How much to conservatives give to charity compared to their liberal counterparts? Just because they don't believe in government handouts doesn't mean they are against the poor. They are FOR the right ways to enable the poor to fend for themselves, rather than becoming wards of the state.
And who was it that did the bulk of the relief work after Katrina? Your vaunted government (admittedly crippled by Bush appointees) performed pathetically, while conservative Christian groups saved the day all over the place.
You measure by the liberal yardstick of government programs, rather than by the measure of actually helping people.
Seeker,
Let's be honest: when the Republican party isn't writing tax-breaks for the rich into law, it's writing protections of "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance into law. Who do you think that sort of legislation is aimed at? Me?
The fact of the matter is that Republicans tend to be fundamentally unserious about working to solve this country's problems. (And for the record, I'd argue that Democrats are also fundamentally unserious about this nation's problems.) But the idea that conservatives are somehow compassionate is utter nonsense. The best examples I can give you are Republican refusal to raise the minimum wage (even a little bit!), Republican refusal to try to solve this nation's health care crisis, Republican refusal outlaw capital punishment, Republican refusal to alter our justice system. These are all acts which press down upon the already poor. How can it be compassionate to see these OBVIOUS problems and then turn a blind eye for another anti-gay vote or whatever?
Sam, so your definition of compassion is someone who agrees with you on the issues? Do you see where that type of logic leads?
As I said, I disagreed with my professor, but I understood her motives. We have a policy disagreement, not a disagreement over the value of people. It is sad that you see Republicans as uncompassionate because they believe differently than you.
Cineaste, I will address the issue you raised (ESCR) in a post today. I will again prove that I am more conservative than seeker. ;)
Also, I find it telling that you equate me with the cartoon you linked to because I wrote a post about conservatives and liberals both being compassionate, just having different forms of it and because I disagree with you on ESCR. How does that make me the screaming stereotype you linked to?
But the idea that conservatives are somehow compassionate is utter nonsense.
I'd say that your statement is utter nonsense, esp. when it comes to religious conservatives. They are very concerned about people. Hence the evidences given above.
You make the same sort of arguments against conservatives that the book "culture of death" makes agains the left, and with less effect.
You call capital punishment cruel. Conservatives call it justice. When a true murderer is killed, I think it is just, not cruel.
You call abortion a compassionate choice. I call it murder.
You call workfare cruel – I call it meaningful reform to keep people from becoming dependent on the state. You call entitlement programs compassionate, I call them boondoggles that often enable the behaviors behind poverty rather than curing them.
Conservatives, like liberals, are concerned about people, and of course, there are plenty of politicians on both sides that are only in it for the power, backed by big money. The existence of compassionate conservatives is, in my mind, beyond dispute.
The real question that needs answering is, whose policies work? I'd say that in general, centralized programs are, at best, short term stop gap measures that address crises. But to extend them into long term entitlements is the type of socialist welfare state that I believe does not work, and stifles human initiative and resonsibility.
Aaron and Seeker,
It isn't just that we disagree fellas, it's that conservatives tend to oppose any government action which might benefit the least fortunate because we'll have charities able to do all of the necessary work for people. Except that is a lie, an obvious lie, and you know it isn't true. Sure, a family of four with two parents making minimum wage can go get food from this shelter, and some medical attention from that hospice, but those organizations don't offer unlimited resources. Simple changes in our economic structure – allowing for a minimum wage increase, for example, or ensuring that all Americans have access to health care – doesn't somehow ruin America.
And as for your claim that religious conservatives care about people Seeker, please. Be honest: religious conservatives care about other religious conservatives. But they're not offering help to everybody; to those that they disagree with, religious conservatives demand change before help is offered. That's hardly charity. That's blackmail.
Of course, you know that already, just as you know that I'm not advocating a welfare state in which nobody has to work and everybody lives in luxury. Advocating a minimum wage that changes with inflation is hardly a welfare state.
Finally, you wrote this: You call capital punishment cruel. Conservatives call it justice. When a true murderer is killed, I think it is just, not cruel. The issue isn't true murderers being put to death – although don't you find it slightly concerning that poor black men are put to death far more than rich white men, even for similar crimes – it's the possibility that people who aren't murderers are being put to death. Again, see Innocence Project. How you can see those statistics and still jump for joy during executions is positively beyond me. Somehow, I end up being more Christian than you, and I think Christianity is a hypocritical crock.