The battle for conservatism is being waged

The battle for the future of conservatism is being waged. The question is are we paying attention? In my last blog post, I cited Senator Tom Coburn's recent WSJ Editorial in which he criticized "compassionate conservatism."

Now, Michael Gerson of the Council of Foreign Relations is taking Coburn to task in a recent Washington Post editorial.

Gerson first puts the substance of the argument on the table for all conservatives: "Compassionate conservatism began with some questions: Is it possible to apply conservative and free-market ideas -- school vouchers, the promotion of community and faith-based institutions, the encouragement of wealth-building and social mobility -- to the task of helping marginalized Americans? In the wake of liberal failures, do conservatives offer any hope to addicts and the homeless, to disadvantaged children in need of mentors and adequate education, to people living among the broken glass of durable poverty?"

Then he begins his defense: "But compassionate conservatism has come under criticism for a variety of reasons. For some, it is fundamentally at odds with fiscal conservatism -- no social priority is deemed more urgent than balancing the budget. For others, it is a violation of their vision of limited government -- the state's only valid purpose is to uphold markets and protect individual liberty. But by drawing these limits so narrowly, such critics would relegate conservatism to the realm of rejected ideologies: untainted, uncomplicated and ignored. And by leaving great social needs unmet, they would grant liberalism an open field and invite genuine statism."

I think the term compassionate conservatism is not only flawed, it is offensive. Is conservatism itself not compassionate? If liberals are for helping the poor, then why do we still have poverty? Liberal policies don't work. When conservative policies have been tried, it has not only worked, but proved popular. Remember welfare reform? We were all told then that welfare-to-work programs were not compassionate. The results have proved the opposite. Meanwhile, we have gone through decades of socialist policies that have not worked and only created more poverty.

In my opinion, Tom Coburn is right that we need to dump compassionate conservatism overboard. Conservatism was working plenty well before we added the so-called compassionate policies to our agenda. If people want big government policies, they'll seek the professionals: the Democrats. Let's get back to our brand of limiting government, and providing free-market solutions.