In his latest
column for the Washington Post, Michael Gerson
undertakes to defend compassionate conservatism from John
O'Sullivan. It's unfortunate that O'Sullivan's National
Review piece isn't online, because Gerson fails entirely to
respond to O'Sullivan's critique on any substantive level. But he
does do a nice job of underscoring O'Sullivan's point.
Gerson doesn't bother to prove that any of the compassionate
conservative programs he cites will work or raise arguments as to
why those to his right are wrong. He simply cites these programs
as evidence that he and President Bush care and that his critics
don't. On his side is Tory democracy, neoconservatism,
progressive conservatism, and national greatness conservativsm.
On the other is the slaveholding conservatism of John Calhoun
(though he does generously allow that Dick Armey's libertarian
objections to government provision of health care and preference
for a free market in health care instead are less evil than
support for human bondage).
One could be a Gerson-in-reverse and claim for his side the
peace-and-prosperity conservatisms of the past while consigning
Gerson to the outer darkness of warmaking conservatism,
imperialist conservatism, and big government conservatism. But
that isn't really necessary. The main problem with compassionate
conservatism is that it is only secondarily interested in
relieving poverty, expanding access to health care, eliminating
AIDs, and improving living conditions in the Third World. It is
primarily a PR campaign designed to show that members of Gerson's
clique are not like those other mean, racist, isolationist, and
antigovernment conservatives. They are nice, caring conservatives
instead. It is, as O'Sullivan said, an act of moral
self-congratulation masquerading as policymaking.
UPDATE: NR has now posted O'Sullivan's
article.
