The 'Compassion' Factor
January 29, 2003 By Stephen Goldsmith American Conservatism
INDIANAPOLIS -- For 50 years, conservatives have offered policies that emphasize freedom, market solutions, and the dangers of big government. Yet all the while, government has continued to grow. "Compassionate conservatism," whose principles President Bush has yet again embraced, adapts to this reality by insisting that society can improve the lot of all Americans without making them passive clients of government.
* * *
The compassionate conservative approach blends Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek's economic ideas -- belief in smaller government, lower taxes, and free markets -- with the social thinking of James Q. Wilson that moral values and personal responsibility are integral to a healthy society. Compassionate conservatism is rooted in benchmark works like "The Dream and the Nightmare," by Myron Magnet, which demonstrated that the do-good liberal policies of the 1960s in fact hurt those in the underclass rather than helping them, by trapping them in programs and environments not conducive to a productive life. What Messrs. Magnet, Wilson and others showed was that policies which foster conservative values -- work, family, self-reliance and enterprise -- offer lower-income people the opportunity to move from the dependent to the productive class. In addition, compassionate conservatism takes us back to the future by acknowledging the huge growth of the state while articulating a better way for government to help those whom prosperity has left behind.
Some conservatives, not unreasonably, argue that the modifier "compassionate" is at best redundant and, at worst, an insult to true conservatives. Neither view is correct. Rather, "compassionate" acknowledges that the state has grown, that prosperity does not raise all boats evenly or immediately, and that government has a role to play in helping those in need become self-governing citizens. Thus, a compassionate agenda discharges government's role in resolving social problems by supporting, not supplanting, functioning elements of civil society. It argues for reduced taxes, not merely to stimulate the economy, but also because families know better than bureaucrats how to spend their funds.
This agenda recognizes that values count; that children born to married, non-teen parents have better chances in life, and thus it encourages public policies that support family, marriage, and faith. Infant mortality, high teen birth rates, poor educational performance, drug use, and crime cannot be disconnected from individuals' emotional and spiritual needs, and personal responsibility. Government's obligation to those in trouble is best fulfilled by making funds more accessible to neighborhood and faith-based organizations that administer a mix of love and discipline. To compassionate conservatives, these represent appropriate roles and policies for government to pursue. Most invigorating, compassionate conservatism is an optimistic view that all Americans, given the opportunity, can build their own wealth; that raising one person out of poverty is not simply dependent on redistributing the wealth of another; that all can participate in capitalism and civic life.
Perhaps the experiences of several of us who were mayors or governors in the '90s provide examples of how the new Congress can help the president apply these principles. As mayor of Indianapolis, I strove to reorient government in a way that supported the self-governance capacity of all its citizens. These compassionate conservative efforts deploy a new governance that is devolved across the sectors, and marked by individual choice, personalization, and accountability. It does not simply equate more money with better results, as does bureaucratic liberalism. Rather, it understands that "smaller" and "better" are not mutually exclusive. It rejects the top-down, one-size-fits-all model and places much more trust in all Americans -- especially the underclass -- to make decisions about the services they receive. It posits an active role for government in helping to bring the disenfranchised into the mainstream through programs and policies that encourage individuals to become self-governing citizens, not helpless victims of social forces.
That means allowing citizens to select for themselves how they wish to be helped, to demonstrate faith that people can indeed run their own affairs. For example, compassionate conservatism endorses government help for seniors who need prescription drugs and for parents of needy school children. But Washington should provide the help in a way that respects individuals. Prescription drug assistance should be provided through Medicare reform that gives seniors the respect they deserve in allowing them to choose the insurance policy that best meets their needs. Bureaucrats should cede to poor parents with children trapped in failing schools the opportunity to choose another school.
A compassionate conservative alternative also builds up the skills that people need to create their own wealth. Today's social security system prevents families from accumulating wealth and discriminates against minorities and women. Working citizens should be able to establish individual retirement accounts where they can direct part of their payroll taxes in such a way that they are developing wealth, owning property, having a stake in their country and preparing to pass on some of it to their children.
Unlike earlier forms of conservatism, compassionate conservatism does accept continued state action, but advocates altering that action to fit common conservative principles. Where eight years ago, conservatives advocated doing away with the Department of Education because of the dollars it wasted, today's compassionate conservatives promote a sharply revised role that emphasizes helping local school districts with fewer mandates and more flexibility and providing poor parents the information, resources and authority they need to exercise real choices. In the past, economic conservatives were quiet about their sympathies; now conservatives like President Bush wear their compassion on their sleeves, proud when they use the levers of authority to help produce successful citizens.
* * *
Compassionate conservatism accepts these conservative threads, and applies them to existing circumstances. It advocates correcting the balance between the state and individuals in favor of citizens who currently are dependent on a single, often unsatisfactory, approach and emphasizing that public policy and programs should encourage moral values and be respectful of religion's place in civic life without commanding behavior or belief.
Eliminating or preventing this dependence, has been one of the central themes of conservatism from the early days of the National Review, through Ronald Reagan's "Free to Choose" speech for Barry Goldwater in 1964 to the efforts of today's conservative think tanks. Whether the issue is education, Medicare, prescription drugs or social security, compassionate conservatives advance solutions that implement this ideal, complementing the market by allowing more individual choice and less bureaucratic rulemaking. Adopting these policies will inspire people to attain a freer and more responsible society while concretely improving the lives of Americans. Isn't that what conservatism is all about?
Mr. Goldsmith, a former mayor of Indianapolis, is a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and chairman of the Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute. ©2003 The Wall Street Journal About Stephen Goldsmith: articles, bio, and photo |
