Compassionate Conservatism: The Turning Point

Everything goes back to education. That's why "universal pre-k" should make you quake in your boots. That's why "schools of education" should be demolished. Pete Hoekstra, in a letter to the editor (WSJ) smacks down Dick Armey, who has belatedly called "compassionate conservatism" a mistake (while forgetting to mention that he was a big time proponent of same). For Rep. Hoekstra, No Child Left Behind was the tipping point:

The rest is history. Once you've sold out parents and children, voting for massive spending increases to fund NCLB, selling out freedom in other areas became very easy, almost necessary.

Comments

[EW]

Compassionate conservatism is a bad thing? Does this assume that the only "comassionate" people should be the leftist illuminati and any other kind don't exist?

[bbmoe]

"Compassionate Conservatism" is a bad thing, as it's defined. Bigger government, more entitlements, more intrusion into decisions that are properly made or even personally, as in the case of NCLB.

And you're right: saying that there's a "compassionate" version implies that the other kind and the people who are just plain vanilla "conservative" aren't compassionate. We then buy into the liberal definition of a "compassionate" society: one where the federal government takes care of all needs and exigencies. Social observers around the globe will tell you that the higher the expectation that the government should be taking care of the poor, the sick, the dispossessed, the less compassionate individuals in those societies actually are.

Weirdly, this "virtue by extension" is prevalent among people who feel collective guilt, which is why everyone's feeling so good about Barack Obama's election victory. Washed in the blood of the 'Bam, as it were.