Reading notes

Fascinating lament by David Kuo, former Deputy Director of the Faith-Based Initiative, on “why Bush’s faith-based initiative has floundered” —

[Compassionate conservatism] was a new political philosophy of aggressive, government-encouraged (but not controlled) compassion that simultaneously rejected the dollars-equal-compassion equation of the “War on Poverty” mindset and the laissez-faire social policy of many conservatives. It was political philosophy of the heart as much as the head.

This was a dream come true for me. … When [Bush] became the president, there was every reason to believe he’d be not only pro-life and pro-family, as conservatives tended to be, but also pro-poor, which was daringly radical. After all, there were specific promises he intended to keep. …

Sadly, four years later these promises remain unfulfilled in spirit and in fact. In June 2001, the promised tax incentives for charitable giving were stripped at the last minute from the $1.6 trillion tax cut legislation to make room for the estate-tax repeal that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy. …

At the end of the day, both parties played to stereotype — Republicans were indifferent to the poor and the Democrats were allergic to faith. …

[But] Capitol Hill gridlock could have been smashed by minimal West Wing effort. … From tax cuts to Medicare, the White House gets what the White House really wants. It never really wanted the “poor people stuff.”

Of course it didn’t. Compassionate anything, even compassionate conservatism, would be a grand thing if it were real. But in this case it’s never been real AFAICT; it’s just a veneer, mere vote-getting hokum.

Knowing this, I seek to exercise real compassion toward those, like the writer, whose idealism caused them to fall for the deception. (I’m often a bubble-headed idealist myself; I’ve got no business blaming others.) I think it’s never too late to turn from deception toward something better — and turn we must, because each of us, all of us, will eventually be held accountable for the consequences of our actions.

The made-up verb buffolk (rhymes with Norfolk) comes to mind as describing Republican Party treatment of its most unlikely supporters. Which is sadly ironic given the high correlation of said supporters with utter horror at behavior implied by said made-up verb.

I don’t know whether the GOP can change any time soon, given the absolute corruption of power, but I’m sure its unlikely supporters can stop saying, “More, please.”

[via Markos]