Contradictions of Compassionate Conservatism

Sen. Coburn of OK wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this past week detailing what Republican's need to do in order to avoid a blood-bath in the fall. One of his points is on President Bush's so called "compassionate conservatism" platform of the government helping the poor and needy.

Compassionate conservatism's starting point had merit. The essential
argument that Republicans should orient policy around how our ideas will affect
the poor, the widow, the orphan, the forgotten and the "other" is indisputable –
particularly for those who claim, as I do, to submit to an authority higher than
government. Yet conservatives are conservatives because our policies promote
deliverance from poverty rather than dependence on government.
Compassionate
conservatism's next step – its implicit claim that charity or compassion
translates into a particular style of activist government involving massive
spending increases and entitlement expansion – was its undoing. Common sense and
the Scriptures show that true giving and compassion require sacrifice by the
giver. This is why Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions, not
his neighbor's possessions. Spending other people's money is not
compassionate.

Once again, it becomes clear that President Bush was not a conservative and the Republicans are going to pay dearly for failing to stand up against his large government and unlimited executive power policies.