Talk about a straw man.
You’d think that the complaint against the term “compassionate conservativism” might be the disjoint between the two words when snuggled together, which was so appropriately satirized by Garry Trudeau (when the term first appeared in Bush’s campaign) with “compassionate fascism”.
After all, there was Katrina, Enron, tax cuts for the very wealthiest, a rate of Texas executions that set records, diminishment of health and safety standards to benefit corporate interests, bombing and killing hundreds of thousands, locking guilty and innocent up together without trial and torturing them. Etc.
But Gerson in today’s Washington Post tells us that the criticism of the term “compassionate conservatism” he will deal with today comes from another conservative writing at the National Review and Gerson wishes to clarify how this chap forwards an invalid criticism. The criticism? That “conservatism” and “compassionate” are redundant.
Well, no, says Gerson. Not all versions of conservatism have manifested the deep and abiding empathy for living creatures which George Bush’s version has manifested.
The man believes.
column here… http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/16/AR2008121602479.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
