The ultimate truth about ’compassionate conservatism’

By Kersasp D. Shekhdar

August 13, 2004-Within the past three months, a rash of pieces have surfaced in the media about the current American administration and the strange term ’compassionate conservatism.’ Pinko gab-site Salon, official wrong-wing site www.whitehouse.gov, and chameleonic yada-yada-yada tank the Brookings Institution have all had their say on the issue. Unfortunately, because the writers accept the truth of the premise and work from there, every single piece we have come across on this topic has been unsuccessful in ferreting out the ultimate truth about the term ’compassionate conservatism.’ That latter phrase is the objective of this piece.

We posit that the term in question is in and of itself an invalid association of two words and is fallacious. The best way to expose the inherent fallacy of this term is to illustrate it by presenting an equivalently structured term whose inherent flaw is more obvious. Let us assume that candidate Bush had said, "I am an intelligent imbecile." Clearly the term is oxymoronic; the qualifier ’intelligent’ is at odds with the word it supposes to qualify, ’imbecile.’ That is because by definition an imbecile is not intelligent. There is no such thing as an ’intelligent imbecile.’ Now we can more clearly see the root problem with the term ’compassionate conservatism.’ So-called ’conservatives’ are, as evidenced by their official pronouncements, domestic policies, foreign policy, voting records*, and governmental track records, not ’compassionate.’ ’Compassionate conservatism’ is merely a stealth doublespeak term; by definition there can be no such thing.

Now the intelligent non-imbecile could also deconstruct ’compassionate conservatism’ taking a different tack: ’Compassionate’ to whom? Here let us consider the African Wild Dog (Formerly known as the Cape Hunting Dog). Unlike the big cats which kill their prey by strangulation or by breaking their necks, Wild Dogs do not kill their prey, per se. Once a prey animal is captured or brought down by a pack of Wild Dogs, they start eating it. In other words, the animal’s flesh is torn out and/or it is disembowelled while still alive and it dies while it is being devoured. Rather un-compassionate. But the African Wild Dog is a highly social animal. The species indulges in grooming and in play, pack members ’talk’ to one another, and the group collectively takes much care of its offspring. In fact, in such regards it is a ’compassionate’ animal. Similarly, the Bush-Cheney administration has been very compassionate to its own species and families, viz. the super-wealthy and privileged, manufacturers of weapons of war, including materiel, munitions, and ordnance, military contractors and military support corporations, motor vehicle companies and interests, and oil and gas companies and interests. But as far as other Americans go, (not to mention the rest of the world) the facts reported in the independent media clearly reveal that this administration has no qualms about indulging in conduct far more ghoulish than that exhibited in nature by a wild animal.

Thus, excluding the paid-for propaganda artists, it makes no sense for any sincere and well-meaning person, no matter from which side of the American political spectrum, to discuss the term ’compassionate conservatism’ or debate whether the Bushes and Cheneys of this world are ’compassionate conservatives.’ For if you do, no matter what your opinions may be, the propaganda-meisters have won their victory by making you base conclusions on a senseless premise. Physicists do not discuss whether Vf - Vi = IR. They know that in Classical Physics, an equation which equates velocities with current and resistance is a senseless notion. The general public must know too that a term that combines ’compassion’ with ’conservatism’ is equally senseless.

In closing, we offer a translation of doublespeak. ’Compassionate conservatism’ in plain English: Inhumane wrong-wing’ism.

* Specific and general links that will tell you which Representative or Senator voted how on what legislation, and will also give you an overall breakdown:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_108_ 1.htm

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_108_ 2.htm

http://clerk.house.gov/legisAct/votes.html

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_ teasers/votes.htm

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/081304Shekhdar/081304shekhdar.html