Compassionate Conservatism's Roots
Doug Shipman
Issue date: 2/26/01 Section: Op-Ed
George W. Bush repeated his mantra "compassionate conservatism" during the campaign so often that one thought he might have been practicing some form of meditation. Like many catch phrases, listeners inserted their personal perspectives and biases into their understanding of the phrase and numerous voters based their perception of Candidate Bush on their perspective on the meaning of the mantra. As a result, underneath the secular rhetoric, compassionate conservatism contains a reliance on the belief in a particular religious truth that hasn't been openly discussed.
The phrase was popularized by Marvin Olasky, author of the recently published book Compassionate Conservatism. In his book, Professor Olasky, an instructor at the University of Texas at Austin and a Bush advisor since 1993, explains the principles of the phrase and the policy implications of its adoption. Two principles serve as the primary guiding forces of the conservative part of the philosophy; first, individuals are responsible for their actions and second, individual problems stem from a breakdown in values and therefore can only be corrected by correcting the values an individual holds and uses in their lives.
These two principles echo the standard conservative position that individuals and their values drive societal problems. The compassionate portion of the phrase points to the way an individual should be assisted, namely through community intervention in their lives. Unlike the standard, "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" philosophy, compassionate conservatism envisions a country of programs, run by local groups that would teach individuals to live by "good" values. These groups, including faith-based groups, would be eligible for federal money according to President Bush.
Compassionate conservatism holds that there are good (honesty, integrity) and bad (slothfulness, irresponsibility) values. Where might these values come from you ask? Olasky offers that religious groups have the best insight into these values and therefore must be included in the correction of societal problems. Olasky and Bush have both stated their belief that human rights and "good" values flow from a creator. Both Olasky and Bush define this God almost exclusively in Judeo-Christian terms.
Olasky's book shows quite clearly the belief in a religious truth. Yes, he and Bush both say that as a matter of policy, non-religious groups should compete against religious groups for the delivery of programs to help troubled individuals. However, all the programs Olasky uses as examples of success in his book are religious programs and most of his unsuccessful examples are secular programs. Even more, the principle that rights flow from the Judeo-Christian God immediately excludes Hindu and Buddhist groups' ability to teach "good" values.
Bush and Olasky seem to be saying that they believe that only "Godly" values can correct our problems, but they know that they can't say that directly so they have created an environment where all sorts of groups can try to correct societal problems.
As Americans, we should all be concerned with the enactment of an "equal" policy that the adopters believe will only work for one set of people. Will the evaluators of the effectiveness of this policy be able to put aside their personal beliefs concerning religion and look at the results of a program on it's merits? Moreover, Olasky describes how most religious groups that provide programs have strict requirements including a zero-tolerance drug and alcohol policy. Olasky defends the no-tolerance by stating that those who want to change badly enough will abide by the rules and those who aren't ready to follow those rules have no place in the program. Heck, anyone could run a good program with willing students who had given up their vices before entering the program.
So now we see the future, religious programs serving highly motivated individuals while secular (government run) programs continue to serve the toughest cases. Inevitably, the media will ask why the government programs don't seem to work. Enacting compassionate conservatism looks like another way to undermine the institution of government instead of an effective means of addressing people in the most need.
Instead of enacting a prescription based on a specific religious perspective, I would prefer the government act as a facilitator in the exchange and adoption of the best practices of meeting individual needs no matter the source of the knowledge, religious or secular. Additionally, I believe that compassionate conservatism could be strengthened by attempting to incorporate a wider religious and non-religious understanding of value creation and individual responsibility instead of relying exclusively on a Christian perspective.
Some will disagree with this call for a wider solutions. Nonetheless, if a president wants to make policy decisions based on religious beliefs, he should be willing to clearly acknowledge the religious tradition and foundations that lay beneath his program instead of wrapping a particular religious perspective in secular language. We can all learn lessons that can be applied to wider social issues from religious traditions and people of faith, but only when those traditions are clearly stated and openly discussed.
The phrase was popularized by Marvin Olasky, author of the recently published book Compassionate Conservatism. In his book, Professor Olasky, an instructor at the University of Texas at Austin and a Bush advisor since 1993, explains the principles of the phrase and the policy implications of its adoption. Two principles serve as the primary guiding forces of the conservative part of the philosophy; first, individuals are responsible for their actions and second, individual problems stem from a breakdown in values and therefore can only be corrected by correcting the values an individual holds and uses in their lives.
These two principles echo the standard conservative position that individuals and their values drive societal problems. The compassionate portion of the phrase points to the way an individual should be assisted, namely through community intervention in their lives. Unlike the standard, "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" philosophy, compassionate conservatism envisions a country of programs, run by local groups that would teach individuals to live by "good" values. These groups, including faith-based groups, would be eligible for federal money according to President Bush.
Compassionate conservatism holds that there are good (honesty, integrity) and bad (slothfulness, irresponsibility) values. Where might these values come from you ask? Olasky offers that religious groups have the best insight into these values and therefore must be included in the correction of societal problems. Olasky and Bush have both stated their belief that human rights and "good" values flow from a creator. Both Olasky and Bush define this God almost exclusively in Judeo-Christian terms.
Olasky's book shows quite clearly the belief in a religious truth. Yes, he and Bush both say that as a matter of policy, non-religious groups should compete against religious groups for the delivery of programs to help troubled individuals. However, all the programs Olasky uses as examples of success in his book are religious programs and most of his unsuccessful examples are secular programs. Even more, the principle that rights flow from the Judeo-Christian God immediately excludes Hindu and Buddhist groups' ability to teach "good" values.
Bush and Olasky seem to be saying that they believe that only "Godly" values can correct our problems, but they know that they can't say that directly so they have created an environment where all sorts of groups can try to correct societal problems.
As Americans, we should all be concerned with the enactment of an "equal" policy that the adopters believe will only work for one set of people. Will the evaluators of the effectiveness of this policy be able to put aside their personal beliefs concerning religion and look at the results of a program on it's merits? Moreover, Olasky describes how most religious groups that provide programs have strict requirements including a zero-tolerance drug and alcohol policy. Olasky defends the no-tolerance by stating that those who want to change badly enough will abide by the rules and those who aren't ready to follow those rules have no place in the program. Heck, anyone could run a good program with willing students who had given up their vices before entering the program.
So now we see the future, religious programs serving highly motivated individuals while secular (government run) programs continue to serve the toughest cases. Inevitably, the media will ask why the government programs don't seem to work. Enacting compassionate conservatism looks like another way to undermine the institution of government instead of an effective means of addressing people in the most need.
Instead of enacting a prescription based on a specific religious perspective, I would prefer the government act as a facilitator in the exchange and adoption of the best practices of meeting individual needs no matter the source of the knowledge, religious or secular. Additionally, I believe that compassionate conservatism could be strengthened by attempting to incorporate a wider religious and non-religious understanding of value creation and individual responsibility instead of relying exclusively on a Christian perspective.
Some will disagree with this call for a wider solutions. Nonetheless, if a president wants to make policy decisions based on religious beliefs, he should be willing to clearly acknowledge the religious tradition and foundations that lay beneath his program instead of wrapping a particular religious perspective in secular language. We can all learn lessons that can be applied to wider social issues from religious traditions and people of faith, but only when those traditions are clearly stated and openly discussed.