Posted by Ilya Somin:
Steven Teles on "Compassionate Conservatism":
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253740561
Political scientist Steven Teles has [1]an interesting article in
National Affairs on the history and possible future of "compassionate
conservatism." Teles is one of the leading academic experts on
conservatism. He is the author of the excellent book The Rise of the
Conservative Legal Movement, which I reviewed [2]here, and which was
also extensively discussed in [3]a series of VC posts. His analysis of
compassionate conservatism is also well-worth reading for anyone
interested in the subject. Steve correctly argues that "compassionate
conservatism" has deep roots in various types of right of center
thought, but that it has never really succeeded in breaking through
politically.
I do have one reservation about his analysis. Unfortunately, Steve
conflates two very different political agendas that both sometimes
sail under the "compassionate conservative" flag. One is the idea of
emphasizing elements of the traditional free market agenda that are
particularly likely to benefit the poor and racial minorities - most
notably school choice, enterprise zones, protection for [4]property
rights, and the like. This was the thought behind Jack Kemp's and the
Heritage Foundation's advocacy of what they called the "empowerment
agenda," which Steve mentions in the article. It is also at the heart
of the strategy pursued by the libertarian [5]Institute for Justice,
which focuses on the ways in which eminent domain and restrictive
licensing laws tend to harm the poor. Following [6]Edward Glaeser, we
can refer to this project as "small-government egalitarianism."
A very different type of compassionate conservatism was that pursued
by the Bush Administration and its supporters: advocating big
government economic and social programs similar to those traditionally
supported by liberals, but with a conservative overlay. Examples
include the No Child Left Behind Act (a massive expansion of federal
education spending coupled with a few "accountability" measures
favored by conservatives), the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill (a
massive expansion of federal health care spending, coupled with a
small market-based program), and the Administration's [7]ultimately
disastrous efforts to use the federal government to, in Bush's words,
"use the mighty muscle of the federal government" increase
homeownership rates. More generally, Bush [8]presided over a massive
expansion of government spending and regulation; some of this was pure
political opportunism, but much of it was also rationalized by the
theory of compassionate conservatism. For lack of a better term, we
can call this agenda "big government conservatism."
Small-government egalitarianism and big government conservatism have
very different strengths and weaknesses. Although Steve suggests that
conservative intellectuals have grown disenchanted with compassionate
conservatism as a whole, most still support the ideas associated with
the small-government egalitarian agenda. The political weakness of
that agenda arises from the fact that it goes against the demands of
powerful interest groups and doesn't spark much enthusiasm among the
nonpoor, nonminority voters who form the base of the Republican Party.
For that reason, Republican politicians have (with rare exceptions
such as Kemp), usually done little more than pay lip service to it.
Nevertheless, I think that small-government egalitarianism is worth
pursuing, even though it will be very hard to push through
politically.
The problem with big government conservatism, by contrast, is that its
policies don't seem to be any better than the liberal ones they to a
large extent mimic. Many conservative politicians (and a few
intellectuals) went along with it nonetheless because it seemed
politically advantageous to do so. It is still possible that this
approach will be a winning political formula for the Republican Party.
So far, however, it has fallen well short of delivering the political
bonanza that Bush and Karl Rove expected. Some conservatives also
hoped that big government conservative policies would forestall the
enactment of even bigger expansions of government by liberal
Democrats. That expectation, too, has been disappointed. Certainly,
the passage of the NCLBA and the prescription drug benefit did nothing
to diminish either liberal Democrats' or the general public's
enthusiasm for further expansions of government in education and
health care. Moreover, the close association between the big
government version of compassionate conservatism and the discredited
Bush Administration will make it difficult to revive conservative
support for this set of policies - at least in the near future.
Steve suggests that advocates of compassionate conservatism must turn
away from an exclusive focus on party politics if they are to succeed:
The most likely pathway back to influence for compassionate
conservatism, however, may not run through party politics at all.
Rather than attempt to use the Republican party as a battering ram
to reform the welfare state, compassionate conservatism might
return to its more ideologically ambiguous roots, seeking to
advance itself through strange bedfellows rather than party-line
coalitions. Compassionate conservatives could rebuild their
linkages with reformist Democrats, changing policy slowly by
reshaping the conventional wisdom in both parties. The future of
compassionate conservatism may, like progressivism before it,
depend on attracting "respectable people" across the political
spectrum through a slow process of experimenting,
organization-building, and seeking out allies. History suggests
that this will be a more durable strategy for compassionate
conservatism than capturing the Republican party, which has at best
been its fair-weather friend.
There is, I think, some truth to this. Parts of the small-government
egalitarian agenda could appeal to liberals and centrist, as witness
[9]the widespread liberal and moderate opposition to economic
development takings. However, it will be difficult going at a time
when most liberal opinion leaders are intent on an agenda of expanding
the size and scope of government. Moreover, [10]the widespread
perception that the current economic crisis was caused by free markets
has turned most liberals away from the flirtations with limiting
government that some were open to in the Clinton era. It will be some
time before they are willing to reconsider.
Big government conservatism, by contrast, is most likely to be revived
if the Republicans once again come to see it as politically
advantageous. It has little appeal to most right of center
intellectuals (most of whom became right of center in the first in
large part because they are suspicious of big government, at least in
economic policy), and its appeal to liberal intellectuals may be even
smaller. If a big government conservative revival does happen, it
probably won't use the "compassionate conservative" label that has
been tarred by association with Bush.
References
1.
http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-eternal-return-of-compassionate-conservatism
2. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1341964
3. http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1204001365.shtml
4. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9361
5.
http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.ij.org/&rct=j&ei=EYi6SqKGDIyn8Aa95-DaBQ&sa=X&oi=spellmeleon_result&resnum=1&ct=result&q=institute+for+justcei&usg=AFQjCNGrGYeEhQZy4XVtYv057n-MsVbwsw
6. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_25-2009_01_31.shtml#1233103237
7. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_12_21-2008_12_27.shtml#1230062822
8. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_18-2009_01_24.shtml#1232335004
9. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_01_13-2008_01_19.shtml#1200438252
10. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_02_15-2009_02_21.shtml#1234853635
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
