Steve Teles traces the history of “compassionate conservatism”:
In the mid-1970s, a young Republican congressman from Buffalo, Jack Kemp, sought to succeed where Nixon had failed, bringing conservative outreach to the poor and racial minorities into the mainstream of party thinking. Unlike Nixon‘s effort to out-liberal liberalism, Kemp argued that Republicans could attract votes from racial minorities through authentically conservative policies such as enterprise zones, school vouchers, and selling public housing to tenants.
Just as important as the policy substance was the political body language that Kemp urged on his party. Republicans would never get a hearing from traditionally liberal groups until they stopped thinking about them as aliens to the conservative movement: “No one cares what you think until they think you care,” he was fond of saying. To demonstrate that Republicans “cared,” Kemp went so far as to lobby President Reagan to pass a range of empowerment measures before he took the scalpel to federal spending (which he stressed should attack middle-class entitlements first) or passed tax cuts. But while Reagan gave lip service to Kemp’s ideas, he never put the political capital behind them that the Buffalo congressman’s electoral optimism required.
Teles offers the insight that “compassionate conservatism” accepts traditional liberal goals–and simply makes the case that liberal policies have failed to achieve them. Contrast that with the dominant strain of conservative thought today, in which you would be hard pressed to find many prominent conservatives who even think universal health care coverage is even worth pursuing.
This piece made me imagine an alternate universe where there’s a Michael Steele who “does policy” and is capable of constructing both a policy vision and political pitch that appeals to minorities. In a way it’s too bad that won’t happen here, because it would probably be better for the country in the long run if that was the case.
— A. Serwer
