Where are the compassionate conservatives this year? The Republican presidential candidates have plenty of insults for one another, but maybe the worst label one Republican might tar another with is to call him a compassionate conservative.
It wasn’t always this way. George W. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative, and said, “It is compassionate to actively help our citizens in need. It is conservative to insist on accountability and results.” Some of his policies, such as increasing funding for AIDS in Africa, the Medicare Prescription Drug Act and his immigration proposals helped define compassionate conservatism.
Four years ago Gov. Mike Huckabee also sought the Republican nomination as a compassionate conservative. He said he was a conservative, and not just angry about it.
That was then. This year Republican debate audiences have booed an active duty soldier, booed the Golden Rule and cheered the death penalty.
One candidate received cheers for his proposal to electrify the border fence with Mexico.
The Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, which promises to help millions of uninsured Americans, and is based on ideas previously championed by Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, is now the conservatives’ great bogeyman. In one debate, the moderator asked whether we should just let a sick and uninsured man die. There were scattered cheers, and some audience members shouted “Yes!” Ron Paul lamely suggested the churches might take care of him.
It is different in Great Britain. Prime Minister David Cameron styles himself as a compassionate conservative, and would not consider repealing their national health system. But his Conservative Party is much less infected with right-wing Christians than is the U.S. Republican Party.
In fact, the more vigorously a politician professes Christianity, the more likely he or she is to support legislation that is mean-spirited, especially when it comes to health care, the poor, immigrants, women or people who have a minority sexual orientation. And yet in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said the only issue at our final judgment will be whether we fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, comforted the sick, visited those in prison, clothed the naked and welcomed the stranger.
Many conservatives say Jesus’ admonition to feed the hungry and welcome the stranger was for individuals. He never asked the government to do such things. But Jesus was dealing with the Roman Empire, not the United States. Roman Emperors were dictators. Today we are able to influence our government, and government can act on a scale that isn’t possible for individuals or charities. Our government should reflect our values.
Yet when we listen to some politicians who call themselves Christians, you might think that Jesus had said, “Blessed are the angry, for they shall see their enemies roast in hell.” What he really said was, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy” (Matt. 5:7), and “Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours … but woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your consolation” (Luke 6:20 and 24). And he added, “Be compassionate as your Father is compassionate” (Luke 6:36).
Compassion, the active desire to alleviate another person’s suffering, is not just a Christian concept. Judaism, Islam and all of the other great religions of the world teach compassion, as did the ancient Greek philosophers. The Buddha’s great ethical insight was that in order to be truly happy, we must live for others.
The English Baptist preacher John Bunyan, in his 1678 book, The Pilgrim’s Progress, wrote that many people who profess faith “are great prattlers and talkers and disputers but do little of anything that bespeaks love to the poor or self-denial in outer things. Some people think religion is made up of words, a very wide mistake.” This remains true today. What is faith without deeds?
There is too much condemnation, and not enough compassion. Condemnation is easy and feels good, but it improves nothing. Compassion can improve everything. We could use more compassion this year on both sides of the political aisle.
The Rev. Mark Worth serves the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Castine. He lives in Penobscot.
I’m not a religious person and don’t go to church. But if I did, I think the Unitarian Universalist church would be where I would choose to spend my time. Thank you for showing that someone can be a religious Christian and not also be a hypocrite. We know you’re out there, but just don’t get a chance to hear you amidst all the angry yelling.
I think I’ve heard this before….
Compassion is a general human trait: that’s why it’s useless as a guide to behavior. George Wallace felt compassion for Southern blacks and whites (or claimed to) and acted brutally in consequence. Timothy McVeigh felt compassion for the Branch Davidians and blew up a federal building to express his outrage. And of course, Hitler felt great compassion for the German people….
Pretty clearly, compassion isn’t the most dependable guide to right action.
In a world of limited resources, governmental ‘compassion’ for Smith translates into hard-heartedness for Jones, and vice versa: it’s an excuse for favoring one over the other. The Democrats claim to be ‘compassionate’ for workers and the Republicans for employers, but it’s all just an excuse for directing government power to where it’ll do the people doing the directing the most good while letting them feel warm fuzzies over their own nobility.
So no compassion in government, thankyewverymuch: a little grim practicality will serve us better.
Seems like the crop of current Republican politicians has great disdain or feelings of superiority to certain and specific groups. They want people to pull themselves up by their boot straps but then actively pursue legislation that makes it both harder for that to happen, but also harder for the wealthy and powerful to ever fail.
It reminds me of a speech by Sojourney Truth. “As for intellect, all I can say is, if a woman have a pint, and a man a quart – why can’t she have her little pint full? You need not be afraid to give us our rights for fear we will take too much, – for we can’t take more than our pint’ll hold.” Ultimately, why are you so affraid of those that you clearly think are less than you?
the hypocrisy is laughable here.
rev worth, spend less time judging others based upon what you see as acceptable levels of compassion and more time living a life of example. one does not need to support government programs to be compassionate and jesus never said that voting democrat is a good deed. voting is passive…it is not a substitute for helping our fellow man.
government compulsion and control over individuals, even if it is under the guise of helping others, is not christian, in fact, it has given us an excuse to not personally engage in helping those around us-we assume the government should do it.
government cannot play god, like any human institution it is fallible and subject to abuse. our gov’t was therefore purposefully designed to restrict power, knowing it can and usually is more readily employed for bad than good.
compulsory good deeds are in no way true to the essence of jesus’ message. we are instructed to care for one another but the extent to which we do so is a choice to be left to each soul.
lastly, while people across the globe live in horrible conditions, the poor in this country do have access to food, clothing, and shelter. in fact, most have tvs and are obese. jesus’ compassion was universal, so why is your concern restricted to geographical borders. it seems to me that jesus would advise americans, ‘poor’ and ‘rich’, to think less of themselves and help those who starve daily.
If you are saying that Jesus was neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I agree. The Republicans talk as though he is one of them. He is not.
Yes, we should all help others — and you actually have no idea how much Rev. Worth may be doing in his own life, so maybe you should take the log out of your own eye before you attempt to remove the speck from his eye.
rev worth cast the first stone. so you got it backwards.
by accusing those who disagree with his preferred political policies of lacking compassion and being ‘mean-spirited’, the rev made a very serious character accusation.
who is he to decide what is an appropriately christian level of government mandated social welfare.
issues such as healthcare are very complex. for him to claim that anyone who doesn’t support obamacare is not living up to christian values is not only astoundingly illogical, it is also self-righteous, judgmental, arrogant and lacking in humility.
the log is in his eye. he wrote a the opinion piece to the bdn-i just called him out on it.
He had nice things to say about George W. Bush and Mike Huckabee, and called for less condemnation and more compassion on both sides of the political asile. Yes, he also called for a much-needed adjustment to the lack of compassion in national politics, just as Jesus was not uncritical of the Pharisees of his time. It seems to me that there is a great deal of mean-spiritedness in our politics today — both parties are mean-spirited toward one another, and many conservatives (especially on these pages) sound mean-spirited toward the poor, migrant workers, gays, etc.
There is a great deal of popularity in some circles today for Ayn Rand’s atheist gospel of greed. The attitude seems to be, “I’ve got mine, the heck with the rest of you!”
Worth pointed out that, while Jesus was dealing with the Roman Empire, we have a different kind of government, one that we can influence to behave humanely. Shoudn’t our government reflect our compassionate values?
You, on the other hand, attacked Rev. Worth personally as a hypocrite — which means he is saying we should help the poor, while he does not do so. Yet you probably don’t know the man, and don’t know what he might be doing in his personal charitable giving. Your ad hominum attack was uncalled for.