Compassion not part of agenda

Compassionate conservatism. This little slogan has some big problems. First, is the republican agenda really compassionate?

Second, is compassion all this country needs? Third, can compassion ever be conservative?

With the Republican emphasis on family values, I guess we should expect compassionate, family-friendly measures on the agenda, right? Health care for everyone. No more worrying about finances when the kids are sick. Wouldn’t that relieve a lot of family stress? A dose of honest talk about our health system would be helpful, too. The World Health Organization released its rankings of countries’ health and the United States came in No. 33, causing the inequalities of health care in the United States to become glaringly apparent. We may have the best health care in the world — but only for the rich.

The party of family values is the party of family time, right? So I know Conservatives will be fighting to raise the minimum wage. Conservatives should listen to the Green Party’s thoughts on a living wage. The reasoning behind the switch from a minimum wage to a living wage is simple: If a person works 40 hours a week, he or she should be able to live and support a family on that income. Wage increases have not kept up with price increases, and often people in this “booming economy, with low unemployment” are working two or three jobs. A living wage, now estimated at $11-14 an hour, would keep wages on level with prices. And oh yes, more family time. Being able to support a family with one job and having additional time for family should be at the top of that compassionate conservative agenda.

The Republican agenda doesn’t even meet the standard of its campaign slogan: compassion. But there are other problems as well. Even if the Conservatives’ agenda was compassionate, is compassion all we need?

Compassion has mainly positive connotations. Jesus having compassion on the crowd and feeding the 5,000. Mother Teresa holding a leper’s hand and nursing his wounds. These two individuals embody a sense of giving and generosity. But in other situations, compassion can convey a one-sided action. And in the context of the Republican Party, compassion is often paternalistic and self-righteous. The problem with compassion is that it demands nothing from the giver and the recipient is supposed to be grateful.

For example, when the United States gives aid to another country, we may call that compassion. “The people there were suffering and out of our generosity we helped them, aren’t we good?” But justice raises the bar. In the face of justice, we are all equal and accountable for our actions. Justice is a two-way street. So when we send assistance abroad, we can ask some hard questions. Why does this country need assistance? Is it because the land and people are devastated from a war fought with U.S.-made weapons? Is the country’s economy devastated because U.S.-owned companies have plundered the country’s resources with the government’s blessing? Is the country reeling over the repayment of debt so that it is unable to adequately educate and care for its people? Is the country stunned after thousands of its people were killed so we could have cheaper gas?

Justice demands answers. Maybe an apology for not fighting apartheid in South Africa. Maybe some information about which dictators the United States supported in Latin America and how many people they killed. Maybe a reason the U.S. government purposely didn’t tell the Navajo miners they were handling a lethal substance as they mined uranium during the Cold War era.
After disclosure, apologies will be needed. The power of the apology is often underestimated. Apologies don’t solve problems, but they often begin the process. A few years ago if Bill Clinton had apologized for slavery it wouldn’t have healed the racial divide in this country. It would have acknowledged the past and showed a willingness to explore what happened, its effects and how we can heal as a nation. The United States owes answers and apologies to many people. Repayment for those times when we plundered other countries and different groups of people. Justice has a higher standard than compassion, but are we willing to go that far? Are we willing to be held accountable for our actions?

Another problem with the coupling of “compassionate” and “conservative” is that the meaning of “compassionate” is distorted. True compassion is overwhelming and radically transforming. When we come to the realization we are all brothers and sisters and “those suffering people somewhere out there” are really our family, then we make radical changes. Not conservative measures. Radical. Do we have real compassion? Are we willing to work to improve the lives of all people?

Compassion is transforming. If we say we are pro-life, do we work to ensure that everyone has health care and food to eat? Do we work to stop war by ending the manufacture of weapons? Do we work to stop the murdering of kids in our schools by taking away their guns? Do we work for peace as hard as we would for war?

Compassion is transforming. If we say we are a nation of equals, do we work to distribute wealth more evenly? Do we work to make sure people of all ethnicities and both sexes are paid equal wages rather than receiving substantially less than their white male counterparts? If we say we are a nation of equals, do we work to stop the dehumanizing of half the population through pornography and prostitution? If we say we are a nation of equals, do we support all people who want to make a marriage commitment?
Compassion is not conservative.

Until Republicans make their agenda compassionate, just and radical, let’s drop the “compassionate conservatism.”

Guest columnist Tara Pope is a groundskeeper.
She can be reached at (tpope13@aol.com).

Editorial policy: The content of the Opinion page does not necessarily represent the views of Texas Christian University. Unsigned editorials represent the view of the TCU Daily Skiff editorial board. Signed letters, columns and cartoons represent the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board.

Letters to the editor: The Skiff welcomes letters to the editor for publication. Letters must be typed, double-spaced, signed and limited to 250 words. To submit a letter, bring it to the Skiff, Moudy 291S; mail it to TCU Box 298050; e-mail it to skiffletters@tcu.edu or fax it to 257-7133. Letters must include the author’s classification, major and phone number. The Skiff reserves the right to edit or reject letters for style, taste and size restrictions.