When someone is considered politically conservative, the label of "compassionate" is probably not the first word that comes to mind. I have always considered myself a conservative, but my understanding of what that means and how it translates into policies that I do or do not support is constantly evolving. These days it's seems like there is a very us vs. them mentality about politics. Liberals vs. Conservatives, Democrats vs. Republicans. Each side demonizes the other in the media and in the public square. Liberals call conservatives bigoted, cold hearted, and ignorant. Conservatives call liberals oppressive, bleeding hearts, and ignorant. Funny how that works.
Some of the significant arguments between the two groups stem from a difference of opinion on fiscal policy, much of which boils down to liberals wanting to take care of the poor and the needy by spending money through government programs, and conservatives not wanting to. Conservatives argue that government welfare programs create dependency and destroy individual responsibility, and that a free markets fosters greater opportunity. Liberals focus on the real needs that they see- poverty, homelessness, expensive or inadequate healthcare, expensive or inadequate education- and want the government to either regulate or provide funding to relieve these sufferings. Liberals say that the absence of regulation and funding leaves people stuck in suffering, because individuals and corporations won't do their part to help others or treat them well of their own free will.
And you know what I think? I think that both sides have some strong points.
I heard this concept recently- “The greater the distance between the giver and the receiver, the more the receiver develops a sense of entitlement.” Government funding sure seems to fit the bill for distance, it's just a big ominous entity whose name is stamped on the welfare checks. It's easy to forget about the real people whose real tax dollars are in that check, and for the receiver to feel gratitude or good will towards those people for their sacrifice. I've talked with business owners who have had employees decline a raise because their overall income would go down, as the higher pay would cause them to no longer qualify for welfare. There is some reality to the premise that welfare programs can breed entitlement and keep people dependent.
I often only hear the argument from conservatives that welfare programs are bad, and that the government should stop taking and spending our money. But the problem with that mentality is that it breeds a sense of resentment towards the poor and the needy, and fuels the belief that they are wrongfully taking advantage of hard working Americans. I've seen many conservatives be dismissive about the real needs that welfare programs are often addressing.
Yes work is wonderful, and self sufficiency is wonderful, but sometimes people really do need some help. Sometimes they are doing everything they can and they still aren't making it. Sometimes people are stuck in poverty or homelessness and can't get out of that trap without assistance. Sometimes they aren't just "milking the system".
And that's why if you are really and truly a fiscal conservative; living in accordance with that requires compassion, generosity, and engagement with the poor and the needy of this country.
I have a Libertarian leaning friend who recently said this: "It is the burden of free people to demand change when we see it's needed."
I think he is right. If we as a people want to remain free, and want to fight the tide of government spending and regulation, we need to exercise that free will to go help the poor and the needy in a way that reduces the distance between giver and receiver, and teaches a man to fish instead of just giving him a fish. I would love to see a new breed of conservatism that both heeds the call to succor the needy and leaves in tact the liberty that allows people their own choice in that generosity, because a fight for conservative principles will never be won without both.Labels: Politics