Compassionate Conservative? We're Not Falling For That Again, Are We?

by Irene Daniel

I saw Jeb Bush on TV the other day, talking about Mexicans crossing the Mexican-American border without the proper immigration documentation, and describing their crossing as an "act of love." OK. Kudos, Jeb.

But talk is cheap and we've heard this kind of thing before haven't we? This compassionate conservative thing? That didn't work out so well, did it? With Dick Chaney calling the shots? We've seen this movie before, and found it wanting. Compassionate conservative? An oxymoron if ever there was one.

Have we forgotten that 3-ring circus of the GOP 2012 Presidential Debates? It became a contest of who could be the meanest and most insensitive of the bunch. Have we forgotten the US soldier who was booed because he was gay? How about the 'let them die' suggestions for those with no health insurance? And who could forget that rousing applause for Rick Perry as he boasted of the execution rate in Texas?  This was only about 18 months ago.

And how about those conservative policies that insist upon subsidizing wealth, while poor children go without food or a decent education? Have we forgotten that not one single Republican candidate for the presidency in 2012 would take a budget deal wherein the ratio of tax cuts to tax increases was 10:1? How compassionate is that? And there is no evidence that 2016 will be any different. With Ted Cruz and Rand Paul? Who don't even believe in Civil Rights? Jeb Bush would have to abandon all compassion if he is to compete in this crowd. And then, he wouldn't be electable to a younger, browner, more female voter in the general election.

So,what would Bush do about immigration? Or poverty? When discussing financial and budget issues, conservatives continue to misuse the example of teaching a man to fish vs. just giving him the fish. Apparently, they are unfamiliar with the kind of hunger that makes learning a new skill difficult until your hunger is satisfied, at least somewhat.  Liberals understand that, before you can command anyone's attention, you must tend to their immediate needs to the extent possible. Otherwise, you cannot earn the trust that breathes credibility into your words. You see, you have to actually care about real people in the real world. That's what real compassion is.

Perhaps they are well-intentioned; however there seems to be some kind of blockage to a meaningful understanding of people who are not like them: wealthy, white, religious. I saw the juxtaposition of good intentions vs. conservative logic play out consistently when I was a member of Rotary.  It's as though there is no need to explore another way of seeing the world, because they know all they need to know. I'll never forget hearing with my own ears the casualness at which they can dismiss the lives of "the other." There seems to be no understanding of the consequences of the actions -- and inactions -- of congress, that are visited upon those who can least afford it, the most vulnerable among us.

After the election of President Obama, I remember hearing 2 of my fellow Rotarians, both financial advisors, dismissing him out of hand, and predicting that no one in the financial markets would work with him and that he would be a failure. This was said quite casually over cocktails one evening. It seemed as if there was no other way that the world should be, except the way they see it.  I'm sure that the consequences of sequester and other conservative choices, have made no difference in their rich and happy lives. And now they can be right about the debacle that conservatives have created by refusing to govern and decide as adults regarding the state of our union. Compassionate? That's more like arrogance, isn't it?

And perhaps it is this arrogance, which the low-information voter trumpets as bravado, that is the barrier which walls conservatives off from reason. Who can deny that it is this unknowing bravado that appeals especially to the uneducated white conservative voter? That's what they liked about Ronald Reagan. It is exactly this same bravado, accompanied by lots of liberal-bashing and, of course, love of a blonde and blue-eyed faux Jesus, that permits the haves to continue to elect people of their choosing. People who owe them favors and will pass laws that will allow the haves to continue to exploit those very have-not voters. You know the type -- they watch Fox news all day.

There is a reason that poor people, most educated people (especially women), most nonwhite people and most women, especially single women, vote for Democrats over Republicans. Liberal-bashing is no substitute for protecting the rights of "the other." And we who have been otherized every day on our way to success can see through all those lame arguments on social issues. We know when we are on the menu. We were not invited to the party. We who have been on the outside looking in, have become very adept at connecting the dots; the dots that conservatives don't seem to know are even there.

There is a difference between compassion and charity; between charity and social justice. Conservatives love to give to charity as long as they can put their name on something: a school, a hospital. But true compassion is to be one with the sufferer, not separate therefrom. Charity feeds the ego without dirtying the hands. Compassion dirties the hands, and cleans the soul.

In the past decade, we have all witnessed the rise in racist rhetoric and hate speech. Where are the "compassionate conservatives" when it comes to denouncing such words and conduct? It appears that they are either encouraging the vitriol, or sitting in a cowardly silence. I have never heard Jeb Bush, whose wife is Latina, denounce any of the obvious racial insinuations and slurs about President Obama that have continued for several years now. Never. Not once. Compassion is more than a sound-bite in the 21st century.

And how about their love for Ayn Rand? The Christian conservatives who are fans of Rand seem incapable of seeing the hypocrisy in choosing Ayn Rand over Jesus. They are not compatible, not matter how much you try to rearrange Jesus. And it is this obvious incompatible dichotomy that conservatives refuse to see. They don't want to be challenged with facts or logic at all. I saw Dick Cavet talking about trying to book Ayn Rand on his show back in the 1970s. She had a list of 15 conditions for her appearance, the last of which was:  There will be no disagreeing with Ms. Rand. That pretty much sums up the manner in which conservatives seem to think that they own information.

I find this juxtaposition to be a marvelous curiosity, more than anything. However, I am not fooled by it for one minute. And neither should you be.

Jessie Jackson was right about one thing way back when:  Stay out ' the Bushes!