What Happened to Compassionate Conservatism?

This article also appeared today at Time.com

When I first heard that President Bush was vowing to veto a bipartisan bill to expand child healthcare, my immediate thought was more personal than political. What has happened to him?, I wondered. Now that he has followed through on his threat, I can't help but think about the first time we met and the conversation we had about children.

Just one day after Bush secured his election in December 2000, I received a phone call inviting me to Austin to meet with him and a small group of religious leaders. The president-elect wanted to discuss his oft-stated passion for really tackling the persistent problem of poverty and to tell us about his vision for "faith-based initiatives." I had not voted for George W. Bush, and that fact was no secret to him or his staff. But he reached out to me, and to others in the faith community across the political spectrum, because we shared a common concern. I was impressed by that, and by the topic of gathering down in Austin.

Those of us who had been summoned to Texas filed into a little Sunday School classroom at First Baptist, Austin, where we would meet with Bush. I had preached at the church before and knew the pastor, who told me how puzzled he was that his quite "progressive" church was chosen for the meeting. Inside the classroom, twenty-five of us were seated in chairs, chatting and not knowing what to expect, when Bush walked in without any great introduction. He took a seat and told us that he just wanted to listen to our concerns, to hear what we thought the solutions were for dealing with poverty in America.

And he really did listen, more than presidents often do. He also asked questions. One sounded lofty, yet it resonated with those of us seated around the room: "How do I speak to the soul of America?" My answer to that was simple: Focus on the children. Their plight is our shame, I told him, and their promise is our future. Reach them and you reach our soul. Bush nodded in agreement. The conversation was rich and deep for more than an hour and a half.

When the discussion officially ended, Bush moved around the room, talking with us individually or in small groups for another hour. I could see that his staff was anxious to whisk him away (cabinet appointments were being made that week and there were key departments yet to fill). Yet he lingered and continued to ask questions. At one point, he turned to me and said, with what I could only read as complete sincerity, "Jim, I don't understand poor people. I've never lived with poor people or been around poor people much. I don't understand what they think and feel about a lot of things. I'm just a white Republican guy who doesn't get it. How do I get it?"

I still recall the intense and earnest look on his face as he stared right into my eyes and asked his question. It was a moment of humility and candor that, frankly, we don't often see with Presidents.

My response to President-elect Bush was borne of my own experience. He should, I suggested, listen to poor people themselves, and pay attention to those who live and work with the poor. Again, he nodded his head; again, he seemed to agree. When I returned home, I told my wife Joy, also a clergyperson, about our conversation. Weeks later, we listened together to President Bush's first inaugural address. When he said, "America, at its best, is compassionate. In the quiet of American conscience, we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy of our nation's promise. And whatever our views of its cause, we can agree that children at risk are not at fault....Many in our country do not know the pain of poverty, but we can listen to those who do," my wife poked me in the ribs and smiled.

Bush talked more about poverty in that inaugural address than any president had for a long time. When I said so in a newspaper column soon after, my Democratic friends were not pleased. Nor did they like the fact that I started attending meetings at the White House with the President and members of his staff about how to best construct a "faith-based initiative." Other friends of mine, however, were appointed to lead and staff the new Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, the first the White House had ever seen. We brought many delegations of religious leaders--conservative, liberal, and everything in-between--to meet with the men and women who ran that office. Many of us dared hope that something new might be in the air.

But that was a long time ago. We don't hear much about that office or initiative anymore. Most of my friends have long left. I don't hear about meetings now. The phrase "compassionate conservatism" rarely passes the lips of anyone at the White House these days.

And now, the President has vetoed a bipartisan measure to expand health insurance for low-income children. Most of his expressed objections to the bill have been vigorously refuted by Republican Senators who helped craft the legislation. Members of his own party have vowed to lobby their colleagues in an effort to override the veto. During his first presidential campaign, Bush chided conservative House Republicans for spending cuts accomplished on the backs of the poor. Now congressional Republicans are chiding him.

What happened to this president? The money needed for expanding health care to poor children in America is far less than the money that has been lost and wasted on corruption in Iraq. How have the priorities strayed so far from those children, whom he once agreed were so central to the soul of the nation? What do they need to do to get the President's attention again?

The faithful--of all creeds and political affiliations--barraged the White House last week, imploring the President to reconsider his veto threat. Our efforts did not bear fruit. But I wonder if, before he put his veto stamp on that legislation, the President thought back to that little meeting in a Baptist Sunday school classroom, not far from where he grew up. I wonder if he remembered that day, what we talked about, what was on his heart, and how much hope there was in the room.

If he knows his Bible, the President should remember that Jesus said to suffer the little children. This, however, isn't exactly what he meant.

Jim Wallis is the Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis

Comments

[blankmw]

I think that it's sad that you for a minute believed that GW Bush could muster even an iota of a drop of compassion for anyone other than himself. What has he EVER done, in public office or private life, that would lead you to believe that he cares about anything other than himself and his family's reputation?
He's a lying, callous, buffoon, who barely can muster a charade of concern for others. Who else would've continue to read to little grade school children out of an upside down book looking like a dear in headlights when he'd heard that the World Trade Center had been attacked? He was trying to figure out: 1) will Dick Cheney bail me out of this one?; 2) did I get caught with my pants down?; 3) what should I do now?; and/or 3) who should I demonize about this and how can I avoid all responsibility.

With respect to his views on healthcare for children, what would make you think that he'd ever behave any differently than he has on any other issue regarding middle class and/or poor Americans?

[Pdubya]

Thank you for this. This is no discredit to you, Sir, but I think maybe your faith in character superceded W.'s record. His campaign for "compassionate conservative" I saw right through thus voted for Gore. However, there are compassionate conservatives out there and this is what our country needs. The Bush administration has enabled distrust in conservatism because of neo-"conservatism" practices. Ron Paul is what you describe - in ethics, record, and example. Bush wanted to leave a feel-good legacy on some domestic issue...any President does, but supplanting his efforts to get poor real(private)jobs, he took the easy road and provided them with..."hey, lookey here, we need you young christian patriots over in Iraq for our freedom." I don't feel free, and I don't think our soldiers feel free. I know our poor don't feel free.

[Bridwell]

AHhhh, yes... Bush doesn't know 'poor people', he's never been around them, doesn't understand them. Yet us poor people (those of us who do use our brains) know rich peopl. They are usually up in arms for the current 'flavor of the month'. Rich, white Re-scum-licans, usually have a 'cause' this week, which by next week has left their tiny, one tracked brains. It's no wonder to me he vetoed that bill. He's a christian. That's code for hypocritical, backstabbing, two-timing, no good, untrustworthy, GOSSIPING, wolf in sheeps' clothing. I myself do have an intimate reltionship with God which is based upon this little idea that I like to call "LOVE". I try not to be judgmental and try to help ANYONE that needs it, no matter of their back ground, except when I know the person to be a "christian". That is my downfall. I have known very many "chritians' and not one has been very Christ-like. I have never known a single person who claimed to be a christian who wasn't the above mentioned way. This is just my opinion, though. Thanx for listening.

[derik]

Jim, if the compassionate people would only break away from those other people, life would be good. Tonite, I observered a Haggee moment on TV. Don't you think that the real compassionate people should be more outspoken about those Haggee tribes? Anyhow, I am glad for Haggee controlling those masses, otherwise they could be "knowing" each other like rabbits.

[Senzasord]

Compassionate conservatism has been shown up for the oxymoron it always has been. Conservatism is a synonym for self centered sanctimony. It has never had any room for compassion and never will.

[DLB]

Same goes for the oxymoron "thinking liberal."

Conservatives, unlike liberals, do not define their compassion by how much money our government steals from one group of Americans and gives to another. That's enslavement through government control. And it gives the government too much control over our lives.

[realpolitic]

George Bush's main contribution to the fight against poverty is to create more of it during his two terms. The percentage of poor has increased under Bush, real wages are stagnant, and his tax cuts were aimed at the wealthiest of Americans. Conservative economic policies create as great a disparity of incomes as we saw in the robber baron age. Their idea of trickle down economics, giving to the rich so the poor will eventually benefit, should go down historically next to Communism as ideas that have failed.

[realpolitic]

I agree that Jim Wallis was had. Bush may be suggestible to the point that he actually believed Mr. Wallis when Wallis said speak to the poor about their lives and keep in mind the well-being of children. But as soon as Bush left the room, Rove reminded him of the conservative ideology which is tax cuts for the wealthy and that government should not be used to help people because then they will only want more of it. Bush is suggestable to the point he will follow the most persistent advisor, the one with the strongest personality. It has always been Rove or Cheney.

[MikeDu]

Bush is infinitely suggestible - as long as you're the man with the hand on his sleeve. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove - they backed their idiot child candidate precisely because they knew he could be manipulated like playdough. So Bush wound up exhibiting ALL the stunted social conscience of a Cheney, a Rumsfeld, a Rove. He's so given his simple-minded soul over to the evil puppet master that its impossible to imagine what could've happened if he had had a genuinely compassionate puppetmaster pulling his strings.

[Incredulous]

"Compassionate Conservatism" is an oxymoron. Always was. Always will be. It's hollow rhetoric, blatent propanda, and one big lie. There's NOTHING compassionate about Conservatism. Their philosophy is "every man for himself", "mine, mine, mine", and "go fuck yourself". Social Darwinism, where the poor and disenfranchised can just drop dead. Conservatism is corporate welfare for campaign contributers and tax cuts for the rich. How compassionate! It's still a mystery how a nation that thinks it's SO smart bought into this crap in the first place!

[DLB]

"Thinking liberal" is an oxymoron. Always was. Always will be.

Conservatives, unlike liberals, do not define their compassion by how much money our government steals from one group of Americans and gives to another.

[rbenjamin]

Let me give a 3 word answer to what happened to CC.

Slogan. Election over.

[bookish]

By George, I think you've got it!

[Plowboy]

Where is that compassionate conservatism? Could it be hidden under that stuff Bush looked under when he was seeking those Iraqi WMDs? Did anyone check the ash tray? Or maybe it's under that ash heap of American ideas sacrificed in the holocaust of lies put forward by the great Neocons and puppet Bush?

[JimReed]

"The phrase "compassionate conservatism" rarely passes the lips of anyone at the White House these days."

That phrase was really more a recruiting tool. It has roots in the Amway pyramid term, "compassionate capatalism". Amway people helped Bush set up his pyramid of pioneers, etc. to recruit and move the money. The original Amway idea was if you have a money losing pyramid, it takes some real motivation to get people to continue, so they came up with things like the compassionate label.

TPIN

[MinuteMan]

It was always just so much spin. Like other con-men Bush can affect compassion---he might even truly believe it fleetingly and superficially. But closer to the mark is the old saying: "sincerity: if you can fake that you'll go far". A person as shallow as Bush is incapable of holding any principle for long except for where it directly protects his self-interest. Now that he is a lame duck---though still quite dangerous when mixed with the GOPer and Blue Cur Democrats---he no longer needs the pretense and the real face of GWB is becoming apparent to all but the most benighted.

[JacktheBlogger]

"Compassionate Conservative" is an oxymoron just like "Inconsiderate Liberal." Your article proves that "compassionate conservative" was a political slogan adopted by President Bush when it served his purpose. His SCHIP veto proves that the President puts conservatism before compassion.

I can't fathom how he can justify spending a half-trillion dollars on a war that has taken so many innocent lives, but then refuse to spend a fraction of that amount to make the lives of poor, innocent American children better! Even if some the children being covered by SCHIP are not "poor" as the President claims, I would imagine erring on the side of caution would call for a judgment based on compassion as opposed to politics!

[Economike]

I remember reading smoewhere that George Bush's senior's first act upon being sworn in was to sign off on foreclosing on 88,000 farm mortgages.

[nellyol'son]

who ever believed there was such a thing as 'compassionate conservatism'? how gullible would you have to be to fall for that line?

surprised that bush jr. vetoed SCHIP? where have you been the last seven years?

[Clarabell]

Yes, it was (is) a "catch" phrase designed to snag all of the dummies in the country -- but who would have ever thought that there were (are) so many of them?

[colleen2]

Neither Christianity or conservatism have ever been compassionate.