Editing Compassionate conservatism (section)

==As a political descriptor==

===Use in the 1990s===
Compassionate conservatism has been defined as the belief that [[Conservatism in the United States|conservatism]] and [[compassion]] complement each other.  A compassionate conservative might see the social problems of the [[United States]], such as [[health care]] or [[immigration]], as issues that are better solved through cooperation with private companies, charities, and religious institutions rather than directly through government departments. As former Bush chief speechwriter [[Michael Gerson]] put it, "Compassionate conservatism is the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009135 |title=Opinion, Editorials, Columns, Op-Ed, Letters to the Editor, Commentary - Wall Street Journal - Wsj.com |publisher=Opinionjournal.com |date=October 3, 2002 |access-date=February 18, 2015}}</ref>

Magnet and Olasky said 19th century compassionate conservatism was based in part on the [[Christianity|Christian]] doctrine of [[original sin]], which held that "Man is sinful and likely to want something for nothing. … Man's sinful nature leads to indolence."<ref>Olasky, ''Renewing American Compassion'', 64, 41</ref>

In the words of Magnet,<ref>[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-what_is_compassionate_con.htm]  {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031204140910/http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-what_is_compassionate_con.htm|date=December 4, 2003}}</ref>

{{quote|Compassionate conservatives [...] offer a new way of thinking about the poor. They know that telling the poor that they are mere passive victims, whether of racism or of vast economic forces, is not only false but also destructive, paralyzing the poor with thoughts of their own helplessness and inadequacy. The poor need the larger society's moral support; they need to hear the message of personal responsibility and self-reliance, the optimistic assurance that if they try—as they must—they will make it. They need to know, too, that they can't blame "the system" for their own wrongdoing.|Myron Magnet|The Wall Street Journal}}

Compassionate conservative philosophy argues for policies in support of [[nuclear family|traditional families]], [[welfare reform]] to promote individual responsibility (cf. [[workfare]]), active policing, standards-based schools (cf. [[No Child Left Behind Act]]), and assistance (economic or otherwise) to poor countries around the world.

[[U.S. president]] [[George W. Bush]] said:<ref>{{cite web|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020430.html |title=Fact Sheet: Compassionate Conservatism |publisher=Georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov |access-date=February 18, 2015}}</ref>

{{quote|"It is compassionate to actively help our citizens in need. It is conservative to insist on accountability and results."|President George W. Bush}}

Bush began his presidency hoping to make compassionate conservatism his centerpiece. After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], he focused less on this theme, but, according to professor and author [[Ira Chernus]], its fundamental ideas became central in his rhetoric about the [[War on Terrorism]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.commondreams.org/views01/1110-05.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061121213038/https://www.commondreams.org/views01/1110-05.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=November 21, 2006 |title='Compassionate Conservatism' Goes To War |publisher=Commondreams.org |access-date=July 5, 2019 }}</ref>

===Reception and criticism===
[[Nicholas Lemann]], writing in ''[[The New Yorker|New Yorker]]'' magazine in 2015, wrote that George W. Bush's "description of himself, in the 2000 campaign, as a 'compassionate conservative' was brilliantly vague&mdash;liberals heard it as 'I'm not all that conservative,' and conservatives heard it as 'I'm deeply religious.' It was about him as a person, not a program."<ref>Nicholas Lemann, [http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-real-value-of-jebs-unfortunate-comments The Real Value of Jeb's "Unfortunate Comments"], ''New Yorker'' (October 7, 2015).</ref>

In a July 1999 speech to the [[Democratic Leadership Council]], then-President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized Bush's "compassionate conservative" self-description, saying: "This 'compassionate conservatism' has a great ring to it, you know? It sounds so good. And I've really worked hard to try to figure out what it means... I made an honest effort, and near as I can tell, here's what it means: It means, 'I like you. I do. And I would like to be for the [[U.S. patients' bill of rights|patients' bill of rights]] and I'd like to be for closing the [[gun show loophole]], and I'd like not to squander the surplus and, you know, save Social Security and Medicare for the next generation. I'd like to raise the [[Minimum wage in the United States|minimum wage]]. I'd like to do these things. But I just can't, and I feel terrible about it.{{'"}}<ref>Edwin Chen, [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-jul-15-mn-56247-story.html Clinton Picks at Bush's 'Compassionate' Label], ''Los Angeles times'' (July 15, 1999).</ref> Similarly, in December 2005, then-British Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]], speaking in the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]], said: "the only difference between compassionate conservatism and conservatism is that under compassionate conservatism they tell you they're not going to help you but they're really sorry about it."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo051214/debtext/51214-03.htm |title=House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 Dec 2005 (pt 3) |publisher=Publications.parliament.uk |date=December 14, 2005 |access-date=February 18, 2015}}</ref>

Some critics of George W. Bush criticized the phrase "compassionate conservatism" as simply sugarcoating, an empty phrase to make traditional conservatism sound more appealing to moderate voters. Liberal commentator [[Joe Conason]], noting Bush's policy of tax cuts, wrote in 2003 that "so far, being a 'compassionate conservative' appears to mean nothing very different from being a hardhearted, stingy, old-fashioned conservative."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030915/conason/3 |title=September 15, 2003 |publisher=The Nation |access-date=February 18, 2015}}</ref> 
{{external media| float = right| video1 = [https://www.c-span.org/video/?62813-1/the-tragedy-american-compassion ''Booknotes'' interview with Olasky on ''The Tragedy of American Compassion'', January 22, 1995], [[C-SPAN]]}} 
Others on the left have viewed it as an effort to remove America's social safety net out of the hands of the government and give it to Christian churches.  "Liberals make a big mistake if they dismiss 'compassionate conservatism' as just a hypocritical catch phrase", wrote [[University of Colorado at Boulder|University of Colorado]] religion professor Ira Chernus.  "For the right, it is a serious scheme to give tax dollars to churches through so-called '[[faith-based initiatives]].{{'"}} <ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1110-05.htm] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061018053640/http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1110-05.htm|date=October 18, 2006}}</ref> Nobel Prize–winning [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian]] economist and columnist [[Paul Krugman]] has called it a "[[Dog-whistle politics|dog whistle]]" to the religious right, referencing Marvin Olasky's ''The Tragedy of American Compassion,'' who believed the poor must help themselves and that poverty was the fault not of society but of the poor and of social workers.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/compassionate-conservatism/|title=Compassionate conservatism|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=February 18, 2015|date=January 28, 2008}}</ref> Krugman endorses<ref>{{cite news|url=https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/busybodies|title=Busybodies|last=Krugman|first=Paul|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=February 18, 2015|date=October 12, 2007}}</ref> [[Digby (blogger)|Digby's]] analysis<ref>{{cite web |last1=Digby |title=Post Modern Serfdom |url=https://digbysblog.net/2007/10/page/9/ |website=Hullabaloo |date=October 12, 2007|author1-link=Digby (blogger) }}</ref> that right-wing compassionate 'charity' assumes that the giver has the right to investigate and dictate the life of the receiver, even for the smallest charity.

Conversely, the phrase has also been attacked from the right. [[John J. DiIulio, Jr.]] wrote that Bush's "Duty of Hope" speech, delivered in [[Indianapolis]] in May 1999, drew a "negative reaction from his party's right wings. ... Many Republican conservative activists hated the center-hugging 'compassionate conservative.' Others favored it, but only as a rhetorical [[Trojan Horse]]. If a 'compassionate conservative' was actually a government-shrinking libertarian in religious drag, then fine.  But, if Bush really meant what he said, [[Al Gore|Gore]]-like, about volunteerism not being enough .... or about rejecting as 'destructive' the Reagan-tested idea that government itself is the main problem, then many conservative Republicans would not suffer it."<ref>John J. DiIulio, Jr., ''Godly Republic: A Centrist Blueprint for America's Faith-Based Future'' (University of California Press, 2007), pp. 85-86.</ref> [[Herman Cain]] criticized the idea of "compassionate conservatism" as leading to the Bush administration's increased government spending, saying that it "completely betrayed conservative voters and their decades of grassroots activism", and "alienated the party's conservative base", noting Bush policies such as the [[Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act|Medicare prescription-drug benefit]], which increased the size of the [[Medicare (United States)|Medicare]] program by around $500 billion.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18016 |title=Compassionate Conservatism Lost |publisher=Human Events |date=November 13, 2006 |access-date=February 18, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120217192537/http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18016 |archive-date=February 17, 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

In 2006, conservative commentator [[Jonah Goldberg]] has written that compassionate conservatism as implemented by George W. Bush differs markedly from the theoretical concept: "As countless writers have noted in ''[[National Review]]'' over the last five years, most conservatives never really understood what compassionate conservatism was, beyond a convenient marketing slogan to attract swing voters. The reality—as even some members of the Bush team will sheepishly concede—is that there was nothing behind the curtain."<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/217024/living-real-world-jonah-goldberg Living in the Real World], ''National Review'' (March 13, 2006).</ref> Similarly, conservative commentator [[Fred Barnes (journalist)|Fred Barnes]] wrote: "Bush has famously defined himself as a compassionate conservative with a positive agenda. Almost by definition, this makes him a big government conservative."<ref>Fred Barnes, [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/017wgfhc.asp?page=2 Big-Government Conservatism: How George W. Bush squares the fiscally expansive / conservative circle] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151002061434/http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/017wgfhc.asp?page=2 |date=2015-10-02 }}, ''The Wall Street Journal'' (August 15, 2003).</ref>

===Decline===
The phrase and the idea of compassionate conservativism declined after the Bush administration left office. In December 2011, Christian commentator [[Jim Wallis]] of [[Sojourners]], citing harsh rhetoric toward the poor and immigrants from [[Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012|candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination]], wrote that "the compassionate conservative agenda has virtually disappeared from the Republican Party."<ref>Jim Wallis, [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/the-disappearance-of-the_b_1137208.html The Disappearance of the Compassionate Conservatives] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120131092532/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/the-disappearance-of-the_b_1137208.html |date=2012-01-31 }}, ''Huffington Post'' (December 8, 2011).</ref> In January 2012, commentator [[Amy Sullivan]] wrote that "Just three years after George W. Bush left the White House, compassionate conservatives are an endangered species. In the new [[Tea Party movement|Tea Party]] era, they've all but disappeared from Congress, and their philosophy is reviled within the GOP as big-government conservatism."<ref name="Sullivan2012">Amy Sullivan, [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-01-29/compassionate-conservatism-bush-santorum-republican/52873150/1 Column: Is compassionate conservatism dead?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160322045449/http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-01-29/compassionate-conservatism-bush-santorum-republican/52873150/1 |date=2016-03-22 }}, ''USA Today'' (January 29, 2012).</ref> Sullivan noted that Republican presidential candidates "have jostled to take the hardest line in opposing government-funded programs to help the poor."<ref name="Sullivan2012"/> ''The Washington Post'' columnist [[Eugene Robinson (journalist)|Eugene Robinson]] made similar observations.<ref>Eugene Robinson, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/where-are-the-compassionate-conservatives/2011/09/15/gIQA83EfVK_story.html Where are the compassionate conservatives?], ''The Washington Post'' (September 15, 2011).</ref>