CONSERVATIVES STRUGGLE WITH COMPASSION

Republican philosophy seems to create a struggle I have difficult understanding.  I recently read #+@Doris Kearns Goodwin’s recent book. The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism. The unheralded theme throughout the book was the division dividing the Republican Party, which she labeled as conservative verses progressive conservatives; #Roosevelt was the progressive and Taft was the conservative. I think I fully understand the division when put it in terms of evolutionary psychological. The conservative philosophy was in the process of evolving from individual understanding to group understanding.

Goodwin mentioned that she recognized Roosevelt as the founder of the progressive movement. She treated Roosevelt as the one who give birth to the #progressive movement to American politics. I found this not only stilted but also awkward because she failed to acknowledge, until force to do so by the campaign to elect #Woodrow Wilson as president, that there was an existing #Democratic Party that was progressive and seemed to be in full agreement with the Conservatives progressive wing as represented by Roosevelt. Of course, there was the dark, evil cloud of communism the right wing of the conservatives constantly party hung over the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party. Apparently, some radical Republicans of that era chose to label “all” Democrats as lazy, dirty, irresponsible people somehow equated with communist just as a group of modern radical Republicans now do; #Fox News, #Glenn Beck, #Bob Livingston, etc and their followers who only know and understand hate. It surprised me that Goodwin, a historian, would fall for that low-level approach.

There is a theme of compassion or altruism within the ranks of modern conservatives that we could label as progressive. I like to think of this indicates that we are moving or “progressing” from raw bestial greed that we all need to survive, to compassion, which we all need to exist as families and tribes; these two things have to exist in our psychic together. As mentioned above, we have to live in groups, as gregarious specie must do; in other words, compassion for others is altruism and is part of our politics. The compassion Goodwin addressed in her book related to economics and did not deal with religious based human rights and other social issues. According to her, Roosevelt felt very strongly about workers rights, the need for unions, and recognized the harm of income disparity, etc. In contrast, Taft felt corporations held dictatorial powers over workers and; free of regulations, would “always” treat workers fairly.     

In our modern political world, I see conservatives, some more than others, who feel compassion for people in the third world who are suffering. For example, #George W. Bush did much to alleviate the devastation of starvation in Africa just as #Jimmy Carter did. There can be no more politically polarized presidents then these two ex-presidents; yet, they worked with deep felt compassion toward the same end; to alleviate suffering cross the oceans. However, when I compare the Carter’s stance with the George W. Bush’s stance on compassion in domestic issues, such as food stamps for unwed mothers or support for programs that deal with Aid for Dependent Children I am deeply puzzled. Add to the that list of domestic program such things as Social Security that wiped out old age poverty, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act that makes health care available to poor people, and public schools that give poor children an education, and the right of workers to organize into unions you see something remarkable. Republicans do not have one ounce of compassion; they hate these programs while liberals love them. Let people die or starve; it is the way thing are. Domestic poverty is something to be punished not alleviated. That is life.

How can you or anyone else explain this foreign verses domestic dichotomy? The only things I can think of is “distance makes the heart grow fonder” (meaning the people helped cannot vote of the other guy) or that Republicans feel this is the land of opportunity; therefore, poor people are poor because the deserve to be poor. I admit, neither explanation makes good sense, but then what does?  The important thing as that we are all learning to overcome or bestial greed; it is just that some of us are learning faster than others are learning. For example, #Teddy Roosevelt learned faster than #William Howard Taft.  

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated