Is Compassionate Conservatism (Still) the Answer?

If you were tuned into politics in the 1990’s and early 2000’s, you probably heard of the concept of “compassionate conservatism”, but now it has all but faded from political discourse. Former leaders of both the United Kingdom (Prime Minister David Cameron) and the United States (President George W. Bush) both spear-headed compassionate conservatism as major bedrocks of their governing philosophies. Although Cameron and Bush seem quite far from the present moment in comparison to the current leaders of their parties, it’s intriguing that the concept that wielded such potential has been left on the cutting room floor without anyone interested in scooping it up.. Of course, even at the time, there was no lack of  criticism of the concept from both right-leaning and left-leaning sources. Bill Clinton had this to say about the philosophy in a 1999 speech at the Democratic Leadership Council:

“This ‘compassionate conservatism’ has a great ring to it, you know? It sounds so good. And I’ve really worked hard to try to figure out what it means… I made an honest effort, and near as I can tell, here’s what it means: It means, ‘I like you. I do. And I would like to be for the patients’ bill of rights and I’d like to be for closing the gun show loophole, and I’d like not to squander the surplus and, you know, save Social Security and Medicare for the next generation. I’d like to raise the minimum wage. I’d like to do these things. But I just can’t, and I feel terrible about it.’“

On the right, you had critiques from institutional players like the Cato Institute and writers like Reihan Salam. So, what is compassionate conservatism? And why would such a heavily shellacked concept be relevant to the future of a new American approach to governance and politics?

At the heart of it, compassionate conservatism is a repudiation of the narrative that conservatives “don’t care” for others. Critically, it focuses on the local community and its’ ability to wield the power of solidarity. Compassionate conservatives make the case that the government plays a role in creating a better society, particularly for low-income and disadvantaged individuals. However, there is an important difference between state-centric approaches to social issues and compassionate conservatism.  

Compassionate conservatives understand that the best approach the government can take is supporting the work of local leaders, especially faith leaders, who are already engaging in worthwhile efforts. Inherent in the approach is distrust of the efficiency and rationale of large government bureaucracy far removed from the lives of those who are supposedly getting “help”. There is a belief that massive, think-tank devised social programs, implemented by the federal government, may not have the relational, transformative impact that a local non-profit with 10 dedicated employees, that know their community, can have. Approaches like Bob Woodson’s community development initiatives speak deeply to the need for lifting up local leaders if the goal is long-term, sustainable community change. 

Against the old conservative consensus, compassionate conservatives would affirm that some level of government funding is a critical part of the story to achieve sustainable change. These local initiatives can’t do it alone. They are very often run by people with good intentions and big goals, but nearly 100% reliant on grants and donations. If a small organization like this is located in an economically devastated rural or urban community, the likelihood of many wealthy donors and foundations lining up to take an interest may be slim. The uncertain nature of funding kills the capacity of organizations to succeed in creating long-term change. And the results of that uncertainty is a patchwork approach that is littered with issues of discontinuity. 

Putting the plan in action, George W. Bush launched the Office of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives, an office that has morphed a few times under the various presidents that have come after Bush. This initiative expanded the ability of nonprofits, churches, and local leaders to apply for competitive government funding to deal with social issues, instead of creating a government program that addresses the problem. This initiative unleashed potential innovation and social entrepreneurship in the fight to make our country better for everyone, including those who are fighting addictions, intergenerational poverty, and a myriad of other struggles. It also calls forth the best in local communities and strengthens the civic fabric at the local and regional level. 

With debates over how to create a more just society raging at all levels, it’s important to look at the debate through the frame of means rather than ends. We all want a society that is just, economically prosperous, and widely educated. We all want communities that are safe, morally sound, and with strong families – and  conservatism in the future should not be afraid to champion that. Compassionate conservatism provides a realistic response to the thinking that the “government does it best”. Whether it be getting people employed, providing a well-rounded education, achieving homeownership, or helping families overcome the effects of drug addiction, maybe the best thing that the government can do is give people the ability to be the architects of their own solutions.