Talk:Compassionate conservatism

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Newt Gingrich:

  • Back in 1995 he was mocked for warning the public that inner-city kids would be left out of the computer-filled future if we didn't get computers into inner-city (largely black and Hispanic) schools just as suburban (largely white) parents were providing computers for their kids. Only years later did liberals recognize the very real danger of the socio-economic "digital divide" as a threat to poor kids. Newt was the first to notice the danger — and he was the first to try to actually do something about it. [1]

Marvin Olasky:

  • ...The Tragedy of American Compassion, which was first published in 1992. Coldly received at first, the book soon gained the endorsement of William Bennett and Newt Gingrich, who gave a copy to every incoming Republican freshman representative in the 1994 Congress. Critics said the book was short on research and excessively reliant on anecdotal evidence; supporters said it was a key work defining "compassionate conservatism" as it relates to welfare and social policy. In it, Olasky argues that care for the poor must be the responsibility of private individuals and organizations, particularly the Christian church, instead of government programs like welfare. He suggests that government programs are ineffective because they are disconnected from the poor, while private charity has the power to change lives because it allows for a personal connection between the giver and the recipient. [2]

Myron Magnet wrote:

  • If compassionate conservatism breaks out of the traditional Republican mold, it utterly rejects the liberal conventional wisdom about uplifting the poor. The liberal worldview, which has reigned for over a generation, purveys such notions as that the only way to reduce crime is to cure its "root causes." Compassionate conservatism waves away the claim that such nostrums are the only possible expression of "compassion" for the poor. It acknowledges that liberal prescriptions, good intentions notwithstanding, have in fact made the lot of the poor worse over the last 35 years. Why else, after decades of growing opportunity, are the worst-off more mired in dependency, illegitimacy, drug use, school failure and crime than they were when the experiment began? Liberal compassion's main success is to make the self-styled compassionate feel good about their superior virtue. Compassionate conservatism derails the Democratic Party's greatest rhetorical advantage, its demonstrably empty claim of a monopoly on caring about the worst-off. [3]