One of the tropes of American politics is that if you advocate government welfare programs, you are compassionate, but if you oppose such programs, you’re cold hearted and greedy. In this letter, Don Boudreaux responds to that notion, expressed by movie critic Neal Gabler, who ought to stick to writing about things he understands.


Editor, Los Angeles Times

Dear Editor:

Discussing the past 30 years, Neal Gabler asserts that "Conservatives are 
pushing aside compassion" ("America the stony-hearted," May 22).  In doing so, 
though, he simply ASSUMES his conclusion - namely, that a people's compassion is 
expressed only, or at least best, through government programs and regulations.

Conservatives (or, more accurately here, skeptics of the welfare state) argue 
that government programs, because these rely upon taxation and force, are not 
the product of a people's compassion.  These are instead the product of 
force-backed greed masquerading as compassion (Ever reflect on why the Food 
Stamp program is run by the Department of Agriculture, or why labor unions 
oppose free trade?), as well as of the wide acceptance of the myth that society 
and state are synonymous with each other.

We welfare-state skeptics might or might not be wrong that true compassion can 
be expressed only when done voluntarily and that, when compassion is done 
voluntarily, it's more effective than is 'compassion' compelled by government 
commands.  But Mr. Gabler is certainly wrong to write as if the argument on this 
front is settled in favor of those who suppose that a people's compassion can be 
expressed only through the state.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University