I don't think the meaning and import of the phrase "compassionate conservatism" is known to too many progressives. I think most of us have the idea that this innocuous little phrase is meant to indicate that a conservative candidate "means well" in a warm-and-fuzzy kind of way. The candidate who calls him- or herself a "compassionate conservative" wishes to cut taxes and be fiscally responsible . . . but nevertheless "feels the pain" of the poor and out-of-luck, and recognises that the government has some responsibilty to help.
Thus, calling oneself a "compassionate conservative" might merely seem a harmless rhetorical flourish, meant to placate the base while reassuring the mainstream.
This is not at all what the phrase "compassionate conservative means" . . . the meaning is specific, refers to an ambitious and well-thought-out political philosophy, and most conservative evangelicals know it.
I'll explain the history and meaning of "compassionate conservatism" on the flip.
"Compassionate Conservatism" is a phrase first coined by one Marvin Olasky in his 1992 book
The Tragedy of American Compassion . To quote
Publishers Weekly . . .
"Compassionate conservatism" is a phrase used by Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush, but he didn't originate it. Credit for that goes to his advisor Olasky, who, in his 1992 book The Tragedy of American Compassion, proposed that the needs of the poor and uneducated could be better met through the efforts of local, faith-based organizations than through a big, bureaucratic social-welfare machine.
This book was very popular amongst the Republican Revolution in 1994. (As a side note, the preface was written by Charles "The Bell Curve" Murray) It was given to Newt Gingrich by William J. Bennent in 1994 as a Chritsmas Gift. Gingrich promptly added it to his list of "must-read" books for incoming 1994 Republican congressmen.
As Olasky said on C-span, Jan. 1995:
John Fund of The Wall Street Journal read it and wrote about it and liked it and talked about it with others. Bill Bennett read it and and was talking about it. Some other people were, and then it got to the Speaker and he got excited about it and has been talking about it.
And as Gingritch said of the Republican Revolution in 1995:
Our models are Alexis de Tocqueville and Marvin Olasky.
William Bennett called Tragedy the most improtant book on the welfare state and social policy in a decade.
We are talking here about a man (Olasky) who, for book research, once spent two days (no nights) as a homeless person in Washington D.C. Olasky tells us he was offered "lots of food, lots of pills of various kinds, and lots of offers of clothing [from homeless shelters]", but never a Bible.
Quoting Joan Didion, in an acerbic essay about Olasky and Bush called, "God's Country":
There could never have been much doubt that the parable of the white homeless male in search of a Bible would resonate with George W. Bush.
(Reprinted in Didion's 2001 Political Fictions )
Bush met with Olasky during Bush's 2000 campaign (still quoting Didion):
. . . Olasky's message demostrably locked into certain of the candidate's established preferences, notably those of spinning off the goverment to the private sector and taking a firm line with less productive citizens . . .
Bush wrote a foreward for Olasky's next book . . . titled -- wait for it -- Compassionate Conservatism .
In Compassionate Conservatism, Olasky offers several examples of "true-life" stories in which people were helped by faith-based organizations. His method of research is entirely anecdotal and the opposite of scientific. No effort is made to show that religious groups are better than secular-governmental orgs at public assitance, and in fact evidence that this is not the case is summarily brushed aside.
No matter. Bush picked this anecdotal method up and used it relentlessly in his 2000 campaign.
From a Bush speech in Indianapolis, July 22, 1999:
In every instance where my administration sees a responsibilty to help people we will look first to faith-based organizations, charities, and community groups that have shown their ability to save and change lives . . .
As an example (which sounds earily like several in Olasky's book -- including the reference to "Innerchange"), Bush cites the experience of a certain embezzler named "James," who, while serving a prison sentence, discovered "Innerchange," a faith-based rehabilitation program. After participating for awhile, "James" chose to turn down parole, leaving his daughter fatherless, in order to complete his tenure with the group.
An astonishing development which Bush seemed to construe as a happy ending.
From Compassionate Conservatism:
It [compassionate conservatism] is a full-fledged program with a carefully considered philosophy. It will face in the twentieth-first century not easy acceptance but dug-in opposition. It will have to cross a river of suspicion concerning the role of religion in American society. It will have to get past numerous ideological machine-gun nests. Only political courage will enable compassionate conservatism to carry the day and tranform America.
The failure of FEMA and Bush's avowed reliance on the Red Cross and other private organizations is not mere bumbling. In the case of Katrina, school voucher programs, and on and on and on -- the ineptitude of government and the reliance on the private sector -- especially the "faith-based" private sector -- is part and parcel with a considered and active philosophy of government labeled "compassionate conservatism" and recognised to be such by Bush's most ardent supporters.