It`s Over: The Washington Post Celebrates `Compassionate Conservatism.`


With the defeat last week of New
Hampshire`s

conservative stalwart
, Sen. Bob Smith, in a
Republican senatorial primary, it began to dawn on the
Washington Post that

American conservatism is changing
.

In point of fact, the Post
for once is correct, though the change in the American
right hardly began last week. It`s been going on
virtually ever since the Reagan administration, if not
before, but as the Post also grasped, the change
is more or less culminating this year. [“GOP
Departures Signal Arrival of a New Era For Conservatism”
by Helen Dewar, Washington Post,

September 16, 2002
]

Not only will Mr. Smith take his
leave from Washington but so will several other elder or
aging statesmen of the political right—the seemingly
eternal

Strom Thurmond
, who at the ripe age of 99 is
retiring at the end of the year; Sen. Jesse Helms, once
the left`s favorite demon, who is also retiring; as well
as the amiable Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas.

In their place, we have such
pillars of iron as Sen.

Sam Brownback
of Kansas, who assures the Post
that the conservatism of the present day is "not
hard-edged; it`s caring."

That was the gist also of the
comment from another quote boy dredged up by the Post,

Marshall Wittman
of the

Hudson Institute
.

"The era of sharp-elbowed conservatism is over,"
Mr. Wittman glowed.

"The hard-core social and
economic conservatism has lost its edge."
Today, in
their place, you see, "we have

big-government conservatives

and compassionate conservatives."

And so we do. Whether they`re

worth having
is another question.

The Post, of course, is
absolutely delighted at the revolution the departure of
Thurmond, Helms and their colleagues represents. The
advent of a softer, gentler conservatism means that the
undiluted liberalism espoused by the Post will be
less likely to suffer resistance.

But the truth is that Mr. Thurmond
has not sported a sharp elbow in decades, while even Mr.
Helms` appendages seem a bit dull in recent years.
(These days, he`s supporting

amnesty
for illegal aliens and

more government funding
to fight AIDS in Africa.)

But however they may have mellowed,
the end of the careers of these gentlemen does mean that
the issues and principles they fought for will leave
with them.


Anti-communism
,

abortion
, racial politics and big government were
the four-part framework within which the old right of
these legislators flourished. The first, of course, is
completely gone today and can make a plausible case of
having won the Cold War. Abortion shows no sign of
returning to the alleys, and the Supreme Court case that
legalized it,

Roe v. Wade
, is unlikely to be reversed.
Republicans themselves now slobber over

racial pandering
even more than the Democrats, and
the GOP and its

big brains
have all but abandoned

affirmative action
and

immigration
. Small government and strict
construction constitutionalism are largely moribund; the
most conservatives today will fight for has to do with
spending and taxes, not the actual scope of

state power
.

So the brutal truth is that the
sharp-elbow crowd never accomplished an awful lot;
American conservatism, as it flourished between the

New Deal
 and the end of the Cold War, was pretty
much of a flop, and now it`s essentially dead.

But don`t expect the compassionate,
caring, Big Government conservatism that Sen. Brownback
and Mr. Wittman (and the Post) are crowing over
to do much better. What they mean is that they have
managed to

redefine conservatism
into something more compatible
with the liberalism whose dominance the right has failed
to overturn and now has accepted.

It`s not true, for example, that
the conservatism of the Thurmond-Helms generation was
less "caring" or less "compassionate" than the current
crop. The right of that day certainly cared about and
felt compassion for victims of real injustice—the

millions
whose
"liberation"

under

communism
liberals either ignored or lied about; the
buckets of

innocent blood 
shed by the

thugs
and

killers
for whom liberals felt

so sorry
; the lives and characters wrecked by the
idiotic

moral
and social experiments in counter-culture that
the left glorified.

What separated the "caring" and
"compassion" of the right and the left is not that one
cared and the other didn`t but that they each had
entirely different and conflicting visions of what
justice is and who deserved what.

What has happened now is not that
George W. Bush and lawmakers like Mr. Brownback have
discovered that "compassion" is good but that they have
accommodated themselves and their own concepts of
justice to

standards
approaching those of liberalism.

In other words, we`re not really
any more "caring" or "compassionate" – we`re just less
conservative. [VDARE.COM
note
: Here at VDARE.COM, we call this phenomenon

“Goldbergism”
  after its most (self-)
publicized exponent.
]

But it remains to be seen if the voters who elected men
like Mr. Thurmond and Mr. Helms decade after decade have
gone quite as dull in the elbows as today`s soft right
wants to think.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS
SYNDICATE, INC.

September 19, 2002