The Politics of Compassion
August 19, 2009 15 Comments
This article was featured in the The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 8/26/09. You can read the newspaper version online here, or read the print column each week.
“You know, there’s a lot of talk in this country about the federal deficit. But I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit.”
-President Barack Obama
A friend of mine, after reading an article I recently wrote against universal healthcare, asked me a poignant question: “As a Christian, don’t you care about the millions of people without health insurance?” My friend was presenting me with a false choice—I supposedly had to choose between conservatism, which speaks of limited government and personal responsibility, and my faith, which speaks of love and compassion.
As a Christian, I care deeply about the plight of the poor and underprivileged. It is reprehensible that in a nation where close to 33% are obese, that others cannot afford to eat at all; where 80% receive high-quality healthcare, that millions do not have access to the most basic of such care; where many worry where they should vacation, that others worry where they will sleep.
As a conservative, I also care deeply about the principles that have differentiated our country since its founding. Liberty is woven into the framework of our nation, and is predicated on personal responsibility, constrained government, and private property. Individuals should keep what they earn, use their wealth at their own discretion, and be free to guide their own outcomes. Where government must intervene and spend, it must do so within strict Constitutional constraints. America was founded on the pursuit, not the governmental provision of happiness—our founders recognized this as the defining line between capitalism and socialism.
So, are compassion and conservatism in opposition to one other? For many, compassion necessitates increased government intervention and support. President Obama recently passed the mortgage relief plan to help struggling homeowners, built $56 billion into the stimulus for expanded welfare programs, and proposed a government option healthcare plan to fund the uninsured. Each was wrapped carefully in rhetoric of empathy, redistribution, and duty.
Nearly every liberal thinker I’ve talked to holds similar views. Those that support universal healthcare, for example, do so because of sympathy for the uninsured. The statistics regarding inefficiency, rationing, and expanded bureaucracy are undeniable, but seemingly do not matter when juxtaposed with empathy. I am yet to hear a cogent argument in support of nationalized healthcare regarding increased quality or effectiveness—I’ve heard hundreds regarding compassion for the uninsured.
The idea of empathetic policy is admirable. Most who believe in it have honest intentions and place great faith in government. But charity should be a personal choice, and government should not legislate specific values on behalf of individual citizens.
The problem is that not all people define compassion the same way. A member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) may believe that compassion means using taxpayer money to rescue abandoned animals. A member of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) may believe that compassion means providing housing and job opportunities for poor, urban African-Americans. A representative from ChoiceOne Pregnancy may believe that compassion means providing a viable alternative to abortion for unwed pregnant mothers. A representative from Planned Parenthood may believe that compassion means offering guidance, support, and assistance through the process of abortion.
This incongruity is why our founders wanted government to be limited. If government takes a citizen’s money and spends it on another’s special interest, government is simply the pass-through agent for theft and redistribution of private property.
As such, the Constitution provides the government with power to ensure certain explicit rights, and these rights are wholly separate from notions of sympathy and empathy. The rights to private property, free speech, and due process, for example, are not derived from compassion; they are derived from fundamental inalienable human rights. If liberals want to fund mortgage bailouts, welfare, and socialized medicine, they should provide Constitutional justification for the massive expansion of government. As yet, none has surfaced.
In conservatism, faith, liberty, and compassion align within Constitutional constraints. Individuals, not the government, give to those organizations or causes they support. As Christians, my wife and I choose to give a significant portion of our income to our church, which in turn provides key services to support the poor and needy in our community. Among other things, we also sponsor a child in Africa, providing the resources necessary for her to attend school, eat regularly, and receive medical attention. We give freely from our earned income without the hand of government—an expression of liberty—to care for those in need.
From a Christian perspective, Jesus never asked the Roman government to care for the poor, nor did he compel government intervention into private life. Instead, he asked that each individual, and by consequence the church, give, serve, and care for the community. Forced charity is no charity at all, and compassion should be bred of love, not compulsion.
There is a fundamental difference between charity and redistribution. Imagine a nation with a 100% tax deduction for charitable giving—perhaps there would be no need for Mr. Obama’s “change.” The intersection of conservatism and compassion is found in giving by choice, and it is perhaps the most beautiful and unifying expression of liberty we have yet seen.
-Matt Benchener is the founder of TruPolitics.net and a candidate for Newtown Township Supervisor. Learn more at www.benchener09.com
Very well spoken on the conflict between being a christian with the free choice to be compassionate for our own causes versus a big omnipotent government that redistributes to those in need based on its own special interests they preceive to be most compassionate and that keeps them in power over us.
In my view, compassionate people give to the poor, and they assist their families, extended families and communities.
Why is it considered more compassionate to enforce government confiscation of wealth–especially when this means feeding a central government $1 so they can “compassionately” give back $.50 to someone else?
I would also add that compassionate people have no desire to intrude in the lives of others. They would rather give someone a fishing pole and let him go on his way and feed himself, instead of setting up a mandatory “fish distribution bureau” that requires ongoing daily visits for the daily fish ration.
The question invokes guilt, not conservatism vs compassion. Conservatism also includes compassion. Most (all?) conservatives are Christian, thereby making our platform against the government control of healthcare very compassionate.
The solution for healthcare for all does not belong to the government in any event. Firstly everyone has a right to healthcare and can get it if they ask, for free if necessary. I’ve worked at dozens of hospitals that will not turn away anyone. Doctors are sworn to take care of everyone.
Secondly, we have forgotten who is accountable to taking care of their family. Federal Government isn’t responsible for us, nor is state government, nor is city government. When did we lose track of taking care of family?
When did we allow government to be in charge of our lives? I don’t think we have, at least legally. The constitution was written with this in mind and everything the government does to chip away at our freedoms is against the law. If I was to restrict access for anyone from anything I’d probably be jailed.
I don’t care if you’re a liberal or a conservative, if you’d take care or your own family we would not be having this debate today. Get off your ass and take care of this at the grass roots level. Do something for someone else and see how good you feel.
Compassion, to a liberal, is spending other people’s money for their own particular cause. If we allow the state to engage in what should be a private charitable activity, then we deprive citizens of deciding what to support with their own hard-earned money. The state pipeline leaks funds as they are taken from citizens and redistributed. Private charity and charitable organizations function without the layer(s) of bureaucracy inherent in government confiscation and redistribution.
The question invokes guilt, not conservatism vs compassion. Conservatism also includes compassion. Most (all?) conservatives are Christian, thereby making our platform against the government control of healthcare very compassionate.
The solution for healthcare for all does not belong to the government in any event. Firstly everyone has a right to healthcare and can get it if they ask, for free if necessary. I’ve worked at dozens of hospitals that will not turn away anyone. Doctors are sworn to take care of everyone.
Secondly, we have forgotten who is accountable to taking care of their family. Federal Government isn’t responsible for us, nor is state government, nor is city government. When did we lose track of taking care of family?
When did we allow government to be in charge of our lives? I don’t think we have, at least legally. The constitution was written with this in mind and everything the government does to chip away at our freedoms is against the law. If I was to restrict access for anyone from anything I’d probably be jailed.
I don’t care if you’re a liberal or a conservative, if you’d take care or your own family we would not be having this debate today. Get off your ass and take care of this at the grass roots level. Do something for someone else and see how good you feel.
Thanks, Matt. A very articulate article on what it means to be conservative in today’s political environment. Sometimes it’s difficult for people to understand that just because you’re conservative doesn’t mean you’re unsympathetic to others’ plights! I hope a liberal or two will take a glance as I think it will help them gain insight without putting them on the offensive.
Right on point Matt! Well done indeed!
I see this point of view, but I do think I have some problems with a typical conservative’s thinking. Perhaps one of you could answer my questions.
The problem you have with health care seems to be that you shouldn’t have to spend your money on others problems because it impedes your “liberty”. How come you all aren’t against public schools? Your money and “liberty” is being taken away to educate others that are less fortunate. What about the government fixing potholes in roadways. I mean they could be taking money to fix roads that you don’t even drive on! Everybody should just use there own money to fix the roads that they drive on.
This “liberty” you speak of seems to only arise when its about money. If it benefits yourself then you are fine. There is only an issue when the money isn’t being spent on you. How many of you are for gay marriage? Liberty doesn’t seem to be an issue there.
Perhaps there is a reason for these differences that I’m overlooking. My purpose for this comment is to understand the thinking of a typical conservative better. Rather than make my own (probably incorrect) judgments, I’d rather get answers right from the source. Also, I read these articles to make me think and question my beliefs … I would like to make you think and question your beliefs so that we all understand ourselves better.
Daniel,
Thanks for taking the time to type this stuff out and for having the openness to welcome responses.
I think the starting point has to be addressing the flawed premise of what characterizes a ‘typical conservative’s’ thinking. I’ll answer your comments point by point to start.
The healthcare debate is not about an unwillingness to help others rather it is about a desire to help the most people in the most effective manner. As of right now there are at most approximately 13 million Americans who can not afford health insurance. The conservative asks ‘is there logic in scrapping a system that, while flawed, provides care for all of its citizens and affordable healthcare options to 290 million or so, in an attempt to improve the situation for 13 million?’. ‘Perhaps’, says the conservative,’we should consider alternative fixes instead of starting over with an approach that history, past and in the making, has proved ineffective if not disastrous.’ The thing about liberty is that every inch given the government is at least that much lost for personal freedom. And the chances of regaining ground are next to zero.
Thus, our hesitancy to hand it over willingly. Many of us are, in fact, against the current public school system. It is another instance of the government in its ‘wisdom’ removing the positive effects of competition from something in critical need of it. But that is for another discussion.
I understand the point you are trying to convey about roads and their maintenance, but there is a critical incongruity in the application. The road system of this country is for everyone to use and therefore it is a responsibility given to the government by the people. Because of the prevalence of interstate travel and even intercounty and intercity travel there needs to be a centralized power to govern the construction and maintenance of roadways throughout the country. If one town/city/county/state/region becomes lax in its maintenance they will face reprocussions. If I were to decide to start digging up a section of road in my neigborhood I would be arrested. Because I am violating something that is not only mine.
Our individual health is not a public issue. If I similarly decide to disregard my health and constantly over-eat or smoke, I may do so with no legal reprocussions. If I then demand that everyone else subsidize my bad behavior by paying for my inevitably expensive healthcare, and people don’t want to, am I not the selfish one in the equation? Or for a different look, let’s say that I am in perfect health and of limited means. I catch a particularly mean bug and need serious medical attention. Is it now ok for me to demand that others pay for my care? Where is the line? Who chooses? Is the determining factor going to be how sympathetic a story I have? How well meaning I might be?
Now consider that each man is entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What does each man bring to the table? Let him offer that as his insurance. How about, each man’s hard work must determine how he will pay for his healthcare needs. And where situations outside of my control keep my from providing for myself should I look at it as someone depriving me of my rights? Who? The hospital for being too expensive? The insurance company? That these questions have even the slightest purchase in an honest debate on this issue is a sad commentary on the content of our society’s character as a whole. Where has self-reliance gone? Responsibility? Pride?
The defense of liberty is a constant. In all issues where the divide opens up between left and right you will find liberty under assault in some way. Have you ever heard a liberal tout the importance of liberty? Gay marriage is an issue directly related to liberty. Money is barely involved, however. Imagine for a moment gay marriage is legal. It would then be illegal to deny a gay couple the ‘right’ to marry. What is a church or synogogue to do? Is religious liberty no longer a given? Would a church be breaking the law by saying ‘we will not marry same sex couples in the name of our Lord’? Again this is probably an issue for another discussion altogether, however its relation to liberty is not too dissimilar.
I commend you on your pursuit of rational thought and your willingness to challenge those thoughts in an attempt to better understand yourself and others. Hopefully my response has clarified more than it has confused. Please feel free to respond with any questions or comments you might have.
Perhaps one of the largest questions looming over the debate is ‘ How critical does an issue need to be before the American people are consulted as to its verdict? ‘
Thanks for the response. As far as the school systems and roadways … I know they are not exactly the same and I understand your views. And as far as gay marriage, it is taking away liberty to say they can’t get married. I don’t think the intolerance should be hidden under the excuse of “its my religion”, but thats a completely different topic that I’m not interested in getting into.
But on to the real issue of healthcare, we all agree that the system is flawed. I agree with your first statement, “The healthcare debate is not about an unwillingness to help others rather it is about a desire to help the most people in the most effective manner.” Thats the exact reason people are for the public option! Lets say you do over eat and do smoke and one night you get chest pain. You go to the ER because you don’t have health insurance. Who do you think pays for that? Your dollar is being spent anyway and not very efficiently. Do you think ER’s should not accept people that can’t pay? I had a lapse in coverage this summer between college and grad school that we were unaware of. What if I got in a car accident and needed surgery? Too bad I guess.
I also don’t understand the pursuit of happiness argument. As Matt has said before, the pursuit of happiness not the government guarantee of happiness. I do not think its the government’s responibility to guarantee happiness, but I do think they should guarantee the pursuit. If you are poor and can’t afford education and can’t afford to not die, I’d like to see how that pursuit of happiness goes.
Also I don’t get this idea of your liberty is being taken away. Is your healthcare going to change? From my understanding … no. I’m going to copy and paste a comment from “the undeniable facts on healthcare” that nobody responded to since its relevant to this discussion:
I understand that Canada, UK and other European nations have very few people enrolled in private healthcare (roughly %10 I think). If the public option was put in place in the US, the percent of people in private healthcare would certainly be much higher (as you say, many people are happy with their coverage). Would that have an affect on these statistics? Most of the people using the public option in the US will be benefiting becuase they didn’t have insurance or were struggling to afford it. Everybody else that is happy with private will be getting the same coverage. They may be paying increased taxes but they will probably be getting lower costs from the insurance. Am I missing something in my logic?
Daniel,
If you understand me on schools and roadways, that’s 2 out of 3 and I’ll happily take it. I would strongly caution you on your use of the word intolerance however. I’d gladly engage you on this or any issue, just let’s choose our words carefully.
The disagreement comes when determining just how flawed and where. You say that my quote about helping the most people in the most effective manner is the reason some people support the public option. You then create a non sequitur by listing disparate examples of current problems while offering no link to a solution. It seems that with one example you are saying that we are already paying for people who are irresponsible now and then you seem to make an appeal to our pity by proposing the ‘what if’ of your recent situation. Unfortunately both stories undercut the effectiveness of eachother and of your overall argument. If the first is true and our tax dollars go to pay for the gluttonous sloth who reaches the ER through vice than your second scenario of not receiving care during a lapse in coverage is a non issue. I am going to respond to your question for the benefit of anyone who did not read it rhetorically. You would have a bevy of options to pursue in making good on the debt you incurred for services rendered by the hospital. You could approach the hospital and explain your situation. They would proceed to ask you for proof. Upon receiving it they would quickly and drastically reduce your bills if not eliminating them altogether. Whatever the balance is is something you should not be ashamed to work off. Set up a payment plan and take the necessary steps to make things right. One last point on your first example is that further down in your comment you acknowledge that taxes will necessarily rise under the new plan. While I concur, it devalues the argument of ‘well we already pay for them, so what’s the difference?’
The pursuit of happiness is granted us by birth. We have it automatically and the government’s only involvement in the matter must be staying out of the way. Let’s take for example our slothful glutton. Say he has determined that he wants to set out on an unending quest of self distruction. If the government’s job is to guarantee the pursuit of happiness and he is going in the opposite direction must someone step in? The government can not and should not guarantee anything more than not denying you the pursuit of happiness.
Let’s look at it from the other side. Let’s say I am an entrepeneur who has spent my whole life building my international business. I have worked my way up to a small company of 75 employees. One of my closest competitors realizes my superiority and offers to sell me his company in England. This will guarantee me and my family generational success in a stable market. Unfortunately with a recent decision to implement multiple new taxes and a universal healthcare bill the government has made my purchase of this competitor impossible because I lack the liquidity (and the hope of future funds) to make a move. It could be easily argued that taxes are actually more clearly evidence of infringing on the pursuit of happiness than simply not paying someone else’s medical bill.
If you are poor you don’t need to afford education as it is a public service. If you are poor and cannot afford to stay alive that is a different scenario altogether. In the interest of intellectual honesty let’s be clear about how many people fall into this category. Do you know? I don’t so I don’t feel I can speak intelligently about it. I know that it is far less than the 13 million who can not afford health insurance. If it is somehow a sizable number even in the 10s of thousands we should make it a priority to address it, but not at the expense of everyone else. That is not to say we don’t address it if it would inconvenience everyone. Let’s just not choose the idea that would surely hurt everyone but that small number (you haven’t addressed the problem of the relatively small percentage of people who cant afford health insurance).
Yes, healthcare will change for everyone. Even if you have a policy you like now, you won’t soon. The inclusion of a public option will undercut the private options dramatically and they will be priced out of the market quickly. The president foolishly used the post office as an example of how this is not true. Unfortunately for him, anyone willing to consider the facts will realize that this is actually a perfect example of why a public option is doomed to failure. The president has said that we need more competition. However, when the government gets involved there is no competition. Who can compete with a company which is not driven by profit? How many decades has the post office been operating at a loss? And it is still characterized by underperformance and general mediocrity. The president references UPS and FedEx as competitors of the post office. Unfortunately they are not direct competitors of the core business of the post office: regular mail. The post office projects something like a $9 Billion loss this year. So while it is nice that they come to my door each day and I can mail a letter for 44 cents (29 cents 5 years ago) we are still paying more overall for a service which has no competitor. This, inconveniently, is a good indicator of what we should expect from government run healthcare.
In response to your question about Canada and the UK etc. I would direct you to the Wall Street Journal op ed by John Mackey http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html. He sums it up quite nicely while offering legitimate responsible alternatives to a costly overhaul. I have yet to hear any rebuttals to his proposals.
I think I’ve figured it all out. There are just a few ideas at the root of all these issues that simply aren’t arguable. They are just personal opinion. And these opinions bring on a whole different outlook on the same situation.
You misread (or I worded poorly) some of my comments. I know education is a public service; however, you said you were against it. I was saying that is if the world was your way.
We are already paying for people that don’t have health insurance. It’s the law actually that hospitals have to treat emergency patients. You see the uninsured as wastes on society, I see them as mostly hard working people just trying to get by.
A few final comments. If I remember correctly, the healthcare bill does address many of the issues of reforming the private system that are mentioned in the article.
Also, the bill says (I’m nearly positive) that businesses will still need to provide private insurance to employees, and small businesses will have better access to cheaper plans. Many people will stay on the private plans.
Thanks a lot for your responses. You have made me think but ultimately I do not agree with the fundamental beliefs that you base some of your arguments on.
Since we don’t really know exactly what will happen if the public option is started, many facts we state aren’t really facts at all. I guess we will wait and see.
Daniel,
Since this seems to be the end of our discussion I will be brief.
I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part.
I resent your fabrication pertaining to my view of the uninsured and hoped for better from you.
You keep referring to ‘the healthcare bill’. I think this belies your belief that there is one on the table. At last check there are five versions that the house is kicking around and none actually address the issues of tort reform or any other practical, fiscally responsible solutions. Also, all are in direct contridiction to statements made by our apparently too-busy-to-read-them president.
No bill would pass either the house or the senate that mandated that employers provide insurance for their employees. This would be a gross overeach and a clear violation of the constitution. More research is clearly needed here.
If I have made you think I am glad. If you think that my arguments are based on feelings rather than facts and logic I am disheartened.
Facts are still facts. The future may be undetermined but in the here and now we still have absolutes, right and wrong, what works and what doesn’t. Let’s claim them and not shrug off the responsibility of being informed and owning our decisions, and their consequences. Rather than wait and see, let us think and act.
Best of luck.
first of all thanks for not directly replying … the columns were getting way to skinny.
I just wanted to be clear.
I was simply pointing out that you tend to think of the “slothfull gluttons” in society. I lean towards the numerous people that will be helped. Both people exist, its just what we tend to see.
I was simply referring to the version of the bill I had looked at. I know there are multiple versions.
You are correct, I didn’t mean mandate, but their goal isn’t to get rid of private insurance. They want a balance.
I don’t think your arguments are based on opinions. General outlooks on certain ideas make us determine which facts are more important. You focus on certain facts which mean very little to me. For instance, I don’t base my beliefs on what the constitution says. It’s a major fact for you that the constitution doesn’t say healthcare is a right, I could care less.
Facts are indeed facts but all these “facts” about universal healthcare are being taken from situations that aren’t the same as ours. They can’t be applied directly. You can say theres a huge wait in Canada for certain procedures. Thats true. But my point was that the Canadian system is not identical to what we are going for in the US.
To sum up the differences, I had the opportunity to talk to a Canadian today. He said there are good and bad. There are waits for certain things but he thinks its a good system. Canada is trying to introduce more private insurance into there system to compete with the public. Ironically, he said Canadians are outraged because that would mean rich people would get better care than poor people. Different outlook on life.
I was simply tired of going back and forth through text. My goal was to see how you think. You provided me with that and again I thank you.
And since I know you will flip since I said I could care less about the constitution, let me again be more clear. Of course it is a brilliant piece of writing that should guide the country. However, do I think they had all the answers or could predict the future? No. I’m not going to agree with something only because of the constitution, I will agree with an issue based on my opinion of what I think makes sense.