I noticed today that Bush is heading to Wisconsin (swing state — 10 electoral votes) to “showcase the softer side of his political agenda.” You know what that means. It’s time to hear about “compassionate” conservatism.
Of course, no one really knows exactly what that phrase means. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) once called the line “weasel words” because it’s one of those vacuous slogans that sounds nice but doesn’t say anything.
But after four years of hearing about it, I think we’re beginning to find a consensus about its meaning. Compassionate conservatism is really about two things: using tax dollars to fund religion and having your picture taken with African Americans.
With his Wisconsin trip, for example, Bush will emphasize his so-called “faith-based” initiative.
Trying to showcase the softer side of his political agenda while banking more money for the Republican Party, President Bush is highlighting religion-oriented initiatives aimed at helping the poor…. Bush’s push to expand the role of churches and religious charities in government programs is a cornerstone of his “compassionate conservative” agenda, but it has caused controversy in Congress from the start.
There’s nothing “compassionate” about Bush’s faith-based initiative. It doesn’t actually expand funding for social service programs that benefit poor families; it just takes money that currently goes to qualified service providers and funnels the money to churches, despite the First Amendment. This serves to benefit political allies far more than families in need.
Which leads us to the other meaning behind the phrase: photo-ops.
Lawrence Weschler had a great op-ed in the LA Times today that explains how Bush is “the picture of racial compassion” — literally.
Weschler noted, for example, that Bush’s campaign website has a page devoted to the president’s “Compassion.” There isn’t much in the way of substance, but there are plenty of pictures of Bush hanging out with black people — including his own Secretary of State — which Bush apparently thinks is enough to fairly characterize him as a compassionate person.
Weschler wasn’t impressed.
I mean, bracket for a moment some of the actual facts concerning the fate of blacks and other people of color across the years of the Bush administration. How, for instance, tax cuts massively skewed toward the wealthy favor whites, while the huge resultant deficits necessitate service cuts massively disfavoring the poor, a group that includes proportionally more blacks.
My question is, for whom is this photo gallery intended? Does anybody seriously think blacks are going to be swayed by one staged photo op after another, in which time and again their confederates are cast as the pitiable recipients of an ostentatious display of kingly compassion?
Maybe it’s for the president’s white supporters, anxious lest they be visited by tinges of self-doubt over their own arguable racism in continuing to support such a state of affairs. Maybe it’s all just a mistake — some staffer messed up.
I actually believe Weschler’s first instinct is the right one. Bush enjoyed about one-tenth of the “black vote” in 2000 and isn’t poised to do much better in 2004. I think the photo gallery is absolutely for white swing voters who want to believe the GOP has made great strides with minority communities.
After all, if Bush is willing to read to an African-American child, he must be a good person, right?