Compassionate conservatism came into our vocabulary with the election of President George W. Bush as our 43rd president. It was a new way to define that particular brand of conservatism that aims itself at helping the lowly and disadvantaged. The problem is that this philosophy inevitably leads to government solutions that look like government solutions. With issues like healthcare and immigration compassion clouds judgements and can result in failed policies. You end up with the government trying to solve problems by putting it on its credit card. The time comes to pay up and while shouts for more hand-holding across the aisle pierce our ears, it is those unholy unions that lead to ruinous legislation. One has only to look at Medicare entitlements and the continual attempts to open up our border and bestow amnesty to those who entered our borders illegally.
We may not have recognized this brand of governing in President Bush but we have become familiar with it and are now able to see the problems with it as a governing philosophy. We fool ourselves by believing that by diluting our true conservative roots with muddled philosophies that claim to be aimed at lifting up those down in the muck and mire. This Prince Charming attitude of coming to the aid of the citizen in distress with entitlements and monetary promises is what conservatives have argued against. It used to be that liberals wholly owned such views on governing but it has crept into the thinking of some Republicans, while calling it heroic.
We now have a candidate in the form of Mike Huckabee who seems to want to continue the legacy of compassion. The former Arkansas governor has defined himself as socially conservative, but it is on other issues like fiscal politics where things get murky. Some are weary of him because of his fiscal approaches in his state which included raising taxes in numerous areas, including taxes on purchases made on the Internet. His spend and tax attitude has turned off many from his own state. While he may be solid on social issues, his moderate tones on issues like taxes, the environment, and immigration make you wonder if he will come up heads or tails when political decision time comes.
Rush Limbaugh has it right when he talks about changing conservatism to fit the candidate. Do we want someone who will agree on one set of issues but match the liberals word for word on others? As a proud conservative who has yet to see a liberal solve a problem with their philosophy you can guess how I would respond. Having compassion is not a negative character trait. In fact I think it is conservatives who truly have compassion for the people of this country. But that compassion does not involve doling out entitlements and wasteful government spending on worthless government programs. You truly help someone succeed for the long term with a hand up and not a hand out, a cliche I know but very true.
Mike Huckabee might seem like a long shot to win the Republican Party's nomination. With his win in the Iowa caucus it does not seem as long a shot. But for those who are still deciding on who they will support you should ask yourself the following. Do we want someone who mirrors the Democrats on many critical issues? I would presume the answer would be no considering the election in 2006 which resulted in many Republicans losing office because they forgot their conservative roots. We have already had one man from Hope lead this country do we really want another?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
A lot of things are being said to mischaracterize Huckabee's positions. Somehow equating his "little guy populism" with big government solutions, despite the fact that he isn't proposing big government solutions.
As far as his record in Arkansas, if you look closely at it and take into account things like (i) inflation (the Club for Growth and Romney and Thompson like to skip adjusting for inflation in their ads in order to make their point), (ii) that he was working with a legislature that ranged from 75% to 91% Democrat and (iii) that he had to (and did) balance the budget EVERY year ... it was a conservative record.
One has to wonder how folks would deal with another great conservative, populist Gov. Ronald Reagan circa 1980 ... If you look at his record in California, would you have also called him a tax & spender?
[Governor Reagan] "signed a series of tax increases aimed at ending the state’s deficit. Nonetheless, during his tenure California’s budget more than doubled and the number of state employees increased significantly.] Columbia Encyclopedia
"Unfortunately, Governor Reagan's efforts to reduce taxes and spending in the Golden State met with less success. ... Reagan reluctantly signed a tax increase in 1967." National Review
"[Governor] Reagan did institute property and inventory tax cuts, but during his tenure the sales tax was increased to six percent and withholding was introduced to the state income tax system. Under Reagan’s administration, state funding for public schools (grades K- 12) increased 105 percent (although enrollment went up only 5 percent), state support for junior colleges increased 323 percent, and grants and loans to college students increased 900 percent" Reason Magazine
"But in 1968, California was a high tax state -- among the top 10 in the country. The previous year, California's new Republican governor, Ronald Reagan, had just called for, and signed, the biggest tax increase in the history of any state." Sacramento Bee
"Gov. Reagan raised taxes by an amount equal to 30% of the general fund" Los Angeles Times
==========================
In summary, serving as governor is executive experience which is great preparation for the White House (possibly why we haven't elected someone directly from the Senate in 48 years). Nonetheless, making checkbook choices at the state and federal level (especially given the fact that our federal government is so incredibly large) are significantly different.
Post a Comment