"Compassionate Conservatism" Only Serves to Bite Conservatives in the Backside

I love the phrase "compassionate conservatism." I love it so much I even bought into it. What a fool I was, but no more. Allow me to explain.

For the record "compassionate conservatism" is a concept whereby conservatives prove how nice and touchy-feely we are by acting like progressives. We spend money on social programs as if we were progressives. We run up deficits that should not be done. Props to Clinton that he balanced the budget, but if anyone had an honest bone in them they would admit it was because the Republican Congress made him do it, but at least he did it, so props to President Clinton.

When Bush spent like a liberal he was trying to appease them and work with them. So, how'd that work out? Bush did "No Child Left Behind" and all he got was ridicule for it. Bush spent more on African AIDS then all previous president's combined. Did he get any credit for it, other then Bob Geldof at least fessin' up that Bush put his money where his mouth was?

How's about Bush spending $550 Billion on the Prescription Drug Program? That was him appealing to progressive wants, yet now all we hear is what a Bush fiasco it was and how much money was spent trying to appease these clowns. Say what? Mostly all Bush got was defamation from the left no matter how hard he tried to appease them. So, did the appeasement work out?

Just like Europe trying to appease Hitler in the 1930's, all it bought was a tiny bit of time, but the results were far worse then if they would have stood up for their beliefs to begin with. Enemies, and yes, the political opposition does indeed feel conservatism is their enemy, only takes any effort to appease them as one of supreme weakness. They will allow us to appeal to them, but as we have seen, it never works out or heals the rifts, now does it?

Bush was tarred and feathered as a profligate spender by both sides, but even in him spending a fortune to try to address some of the leftist issues, even the leftists attacked him for it. Does this seem nonsensical to other folks too? If I go broke giving money to my brother to help him out, when he comes back for more and I am tapped out because I gave all I had to him already, does he have the right to attack me for why I am now broke? If someone did me that way they'd get some free dental work - end of discussion.

Compassionate conservatism is a myth. Conservatives are already compassionate to begin with. Let's define "compassion," shall we? Noun, "a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering." (my emphasis).

Hmmmm . . . . "a strong desire to alleviate the suffering" huh? Well if ya ask me that is the sum total of conservatism to begin with. We do not believe in giving a handout - we believe in a hand up. We want to help everyone elevate themselves and their conditions so that they lead a happy, self-fulfilling and productive life in whatever manner suits them. Is there something that IS NOT compassionate about that? Not in any factual way there isn't, but political rhetoric often has little to do with facts.

As well let's not forget the empirical data that proves the more politically or socially conservative a geographic area is, the higher per capita the donations to churches, charities and volunteerism - we just do not want to see government charity with our taxes.

Whereas the opposition's belief in compassion is not in any way about enabling one to better themselves. Instead it is all about folks giving something to others. History from the world over has demonstrated that when one is given something and told they have a right to it, they come to expect, then stop appreciating and then stop striving for their own betterment, but instead expect and demand more.

Kindness, charity if you will, is fine and good. But when one is told they have a RIGHT to it, then we have problems. Progressives have told their recipients over and over that what we give them is their right to have. Bullshit! The extension or acceptance of largess is not a right. They have done this to wed their voters to them for all time, for as long as one is told they have a RIGHT to what I give them, they will always vote for the cat who supports them getting the freebies.

See how this bites conservatives on the butt? Bush tried to be everyone's president and all it got him was denigration, ridicule and defamation. It allowed the opposition to frame him as a profligate spender, when the truth is except for the War on Terror, a tremendous amount of the spending was an effort to reach across the aisle to progressives. So progressives, like any unwise dog, bit the hand that fed it.

And then when the winds shifted and they got to play the big cheeses, what did they do? They spent even more money then Bush ever dreamed of spending, and yet they still blame the current crisis on their predecessors. Bush oversaw "a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt). President Obama's budget would add $4.9 Trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016." (Heritage Foundation)

So Bush was a moron for deficit spending, but Obama's doing twice the deficit spending in his first year alone is all good? What a disingenuous bunch, as well as being profligate liars to boot.

I must not get it. In my world when I do all I can to help one and to get along with them and then they defame and try to destroy me for my largess, it really only makes me wanna introduce their cranium to a well swung Louisville Slugger, but that's just the evil, violent and tremendously retributive Whiplash. No one pisses in my face and leaves with an intact urethra - no one! I guess it's just me.

SOURCES: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/