Words'nTone

In another blogging threa someone commented on the definition of “compassionate conservatives.” If memory doesn’t fail me, it was a conservative who made the comment.  That person wrote:

“A liberal defines compassion by the number of people who receive public assistance, and a conservative defines compassion by the number of people who no longer need it.”

Now on the one hand, I don’t know this person’s source to say that’s how liberals define themselves.  (I suspect the source is uninformed perception and bias, not research and documentation.) On the other hand, if this is how compassionate conservatives define themselves, then how do they perceive that people get from public assistance to “no longer need[ing] it”?  I couldn’t help myself, but I blogged back—a small voice in the thread.  Despite what you might think, please remember I consider myself politically a conservative—a compassionate one remains to be seen.  Here is my returned blog-comment:

Given the definition above, then conservatives ought to be flocking into human service vocations, if for anything to make sure we’re not just counting heads (that is, the #’s served), ensuring that people are learning to be self-sufficient. But conservatives don’t flock toward building human capital nor do I find that they seek vocations to help vulnerable populations to learn how to develop assets. I am indeed a conservative (despite what I am accused of) and I do work in the human service arena. In seven years as a planner, grant writer, now the Director of Finance & Planning Services for a Community Action Agency (and I travel a lot), I have not met one person who wants anyone poor, who just wants to give “handouts,” nor who isn’t working tirelessly to move as many as possible toward a path of self-sufficiency. I certainly don’t agree with a number of the policies of my more liberal colleagues; but everyday, people like myself, but with more intellect and passion than I have, work hard to help vulnerable populations to learn how to build assets and develop human capital. Of course we can debate the use of taxpayer-funded programs. Of course the public should hold us accountable for outcomes. But I have come to realize that the stereotype modern conservative…which only means some…isn’t someone who “counts how many can help themselves,” but those who just want the poor to stop being poor (all by themselves) and are often more concerned about their property than about community life for everyone, including the poor.  It is a proven fact of economics, that if resources are made available to help vulnerable individuals and families, communities, towns, states, and even our country save money.  One would figure that this would be a hot job opportunity for conservatives (no matter the type).

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.