As a political descriptor
Compassionate conservatism has been defined as the conviction that conservatism and compassion complement used to refer to every one of two or more people or matters other. A compassionate conservative might see the social problems of the United States, such(a) as health care or immigration, as issues that are better solved through cooperation with private companies, charities, and religious institutions rather than directly through government departments. As former Bush chief speechwriter Michael Gerson add it, "Compassionate conservatism is the notion that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the advantage itself."
Magnet and Olasky said 19th century compassionate conservatism was based in factor on the Christian doctrine of original sin, which held that “Man is sinful and likely to want something for nothing. … Man’s sinful generation leads to indolence.”
In the words of Magnet,
Compassionate conservatives [...] advertising a new way of thinking about the poor. They know that telling the poor that they are mere passive victims, if of racism or of vast economic forces, is not only false but also destructive, paralyzing the poor with thoughts of their own helplessness and inadequacy. The poor need the larger society's moral support; they need to hear the message of personal responsibility and self-reliance, the optimistic assurance that whether they effort – as they must – they will produce it. They need to know, too, that they can't blame "the system" for their own wrongdoing.
Compassionate conservative philosophy argues for policies in assistance of traditional families, welfare reform to promote individual responsibility cf. workfare, active policing, standards-based schools cf. No Child Left gradual Act, and assistance economic or otherwise to poor countries around the world.
U.S. president George W. Bush said:
"It is compassionate to actively guide our citizens in need. it is conservative to insist on accountability and results."
Bush began his presidency hoping to pretend compassionate conservatism his centerpiece. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, he focused less on this theme, but, according to professor and author Ira Chernus, its fundamental ideas became central in his rhetoric approximately the War on Terrorism.
Nicholas Lemann, writing in New Yorker magazine in 2015, wrote that George W. Bush's "description of himself, in the 2000 campaign, as a 'compassionate conservative' was brilliantly vague—liberals heard it as 'I'm not all that conservative,' and conservatives heard it as 'I'm deeply religious.' It was about him as a person, not a program."
In a July 1999 speech to the patients' bill of rights and I'd like to be for closing the gun show loophole, and I'd like not to squander the surplus and, you know, save Social Security and Medicare for the next generation. I'd like to raise the minimum wage. I'd like to do these things. But I just can't, and I feel terrible about it.'" Similarly, in December 2005, then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking in the House of Commons, said: "the only difference between compassionate conservatism and conservatism is that under compassionate conservatism they tell you they're not going to help you but they're really sorry about it."
Some critics of George W. Bush criticized the phrase "compassionate conservatism" as simply sugarcoating, an empty phrase to make traditional conservatism sound more appealing to moderate voters. Liberal commentator Joe Conason, noting Bush's policy of tax cuts, wrote in 2003 that "so far, being a 'compassionate conservative' appears to intend nothing very different from being a hardhearted, stingy, old-fashioned conservative."
Others on the left have viewed it as an effort to remove America's social safety net out of the hands of the government and supply it to Christian churches. "Liberals make a big mistake if they dismiss 'compassionate conservatism' as just a hypocritical catch phrase," wrote University of Colorado religion professor Ira Chernus. "For the right, this is the a serious scheme to dispense tax dollars to churches through asked 'faith-based initiatives.'" Nobel Prize–winning Keynesian economist and columnist Paul Krugman has called it a "dog whistle" to the religious right, referencing Marvin Olasky's The Tragedy of American Compassion, who believed the poor must help themselves and that poverty was the fault not of society but of the poor and of social workers. Krugman endorses Digby's analysis that right-wing compassionate 'charity' assumes that the giver has the adjustment to investigate and dictate the life of the receiver, even for the smallest charity.
Conversely, the phrase has also been attacked from the right. John J. DiIulio, Jr. wrote that Bush's "Duty of Hope" speech, presentation in Indianapolis in May 1999, drew a "negative reaction from his party's modification wings. ... many Republican conservative activists hated the center-hugging 'compassionate conservative.' Others favored it, but only as a rhetorical Trojan Horse. If a 'compassionate conservative' was actually a government-shrinking libertarian in religious drag, then fine. But, if Bush really meant what he said, Gore-like, about volunteerism not being enough .... or about rejecting as 'destructive' the Reagan-tested idea that government itself is the main problem, then numerous conservative Republicans would not suffer it." Herman Cain criticized the idea of "compassionate conservatism" as main to the Bush administration's increased government spending, saying that it "completely betrayed conservative voters and their decades of grassroots activism," and "alienated the party's conservative base," noting Bush policies such(a) as the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, which increased the size of the Medicare code by around $500 billion.
In 2006, conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg has calculation that compassionate conservatism as implemented by George W. Bush differs markedly from the theoretical concept: "As countless writers have intended in National Review over the last five years, almost conservatives never really understood what compassionate conservatism was, beyond a convenient marketing slogan to attract swing voters. The reality — as even some members of the Bush team will sheepishly concede — is that there was nothing behind the curtain." Similarly, conservative commentator Fred Barnes wrote: "Bush has famously defined himself as a compassionate conservative with a positive agenda. near by definition, this helps him a big government conservative."
The phrase and the idea of compassionate conservativism declined after the Bush management left office. In December 2011, Christian commentator Jim Wallis of Sojourners, citing harsh rhetoric toward the poor and immigrants from candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, wrote that "the compassionate conservative agenda has virtually disappeared from the Republican Party." In January 2012, commentator Amy Sullivan wrote that "Just three years after George W. Bush left the White House, compassionate conservatives are an endangered species. In the new Tea Party era, they've any but disappeared from Congress, and their philosophy is reviled within the GOP as big-government conservatism." Sullivan subjected that Republican presidential candidates "have jostled to take the hardest line in opposing government-funded everyone to help the poor." The Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson gave similar observations.