"The term “compassionate conservatism” is still invoked by some on the right. But for many commentators, compassionate conservatism has become a synonym for Big Government. In fact, it is distinct from — and in important respects the opposite of – the collectivist/statist impulse.
The idea was based on the writings of Richard John Neuhaus and Peter Berger, who argued in their 1977 book To Empower People that “mediating structures” such as family, neighborhood, church, and voluntary and civil associations are crucial institutions that needed to be fortified. One of the more elegant summaries of compassionate conservatism can be found in George Will’s book Statecraft as Soulcraft, where Will wrote:
The institutions that once were most directly responsible for tempering individualism — family , church, voluntary associations, town governments — with collective concerns have come to seem peripheral. Using government discriminatingly but energetically to strengthen these institutions is part of the natural program of conservatives. Far from being a rationale for statism, the political orientation … involves the use of government to prevent statism by enhancing the social competence of citizens. In the best and most mature polities, what government does is encourage society to do things through its organic working. Government can do this by enhancing, in many ways, the vigor of those intermediary institutions which shape, support and inspire individuals, drawing persons out of the orbits of individualism and into social relationships. One way that government strengthens such institutions is by not usurping their functions. But that is not the only way. Government can plan positive inducements to vigor.
What Will wrote tracks quite closely with what George W. Bush said in his first presidential campaign speech on July 22, 1999. How well this concept works in practice is a legitimate issue to debate. But to use government to strengthen mediating structures is quite a different approach than taking over their duties...."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
1 comment:
Voted for GW Bush twice and would have voted for a third. His two biggest errors in judgment politically were to go in to Washington DC too soft. Perry had the right idea and so does Newt. Take a wrecking ball to the problem and clean house on the first day in. The second error in judgment was to not fight back on the negative media. He just took it. Stayed standing but did nothing to have a balancing information source that addressed every relevant issue. Again, Rick Perry has it right. Stay standing and let your voice stay heard. Bush has nothing but a desolate waste ground in front of him where his image is concerned. It won't be until history proves him right will he show as one of the best, most honorable and courageous presidents in history. In this day and age of 24/7 media you have to make sure you get your position logged in. Compassionate conservatism was one of GW Bush's best offerings. The programs may not have been all right but never before in our history did we see more volunteerism and philanthropy than we did with W.
Post a Comment