Quin, it seems to me the essential problem is that Gerson and
his ilk don't understand the "tough love" aspect of conservatism.
They are so afraid of being perceived as hard-hearted and uncaring
that they will compromise away anything in order to avoid that
perception.
This is what I see as the contrast with Reagan, who understood
hardship as an incentive, a motivator. The conservative believes
that if you're poor, if you suffer from unfair disadvantages, if
you have a few tough breaks, this should spur you to greater
effort. In striving to overcome obstacles, we become better people,
and the man who triumphs over adversity can take justifiable pride
in saying, "I did it." If, on the other hand, government treats you
like a charity case, so that you make your way in the world with
the constant sympathy and assistance of the Nanny State
bureaucracy, where is the self-improvement, where is the sense of
triumph, where is the source of meaningful pride?
Reagan understood all this, in a way that Gerson obviously
doesn't.
topics:
Conservatism
