Related to our recent discussion on Republican spending, Johah Goldberg, editor of National Review Online, in a new column,
argues that President Bush’s excessive spending on Katrina is
intertwined with his mantra of compassionate conservatism.
Similar to the point I made, he argues that spending is inappropriately
correlated with an individual’s level of compassion.
In 2003, President Bush proclaimed, “We have a responsibility
that when somebody hurts, government has got to move.” Bush is
certainly living up to that sentiment in the wake of Katrina. He’s
determined to prove he cares about black people, and “hurt”
people, by spending more than the other guys.
Goldberg also criticizes “compassionate conservatism,” both the term and its use in practice:
First,
as a political slogan, compassionate conservatism was always a low
blow. Almost by definition, people who claim to be compassionate
conservatives are suggesting that other kinds of conservatives aren’t
[compassionate]. Conservatism, rightly understood, never needed the
adjective.
The second problem is that compassionate conservatism necessarily demands government activism.
Even if there is a mountain of evidence that increased spending
does not help achieve most policy objectives, it is easier to argue
(politically) that caring is all about spending as opposed to reforming
and correcting inherent problems with public programs. As long as
this mindset is prevalent, wasteful spending will be around for a long
time.
