|
 hy
has the country moved to the right? The answer isn't what liberals
think. It's a growth and maturing in the nation's understanding
of compassion.
There are,
actually, two kinds of compassion. The first kind has as its aim
to establish the moral superiority of the giver, with only a little
concern for actual results in the life of the receiver. It has a
partisan edge, to show that its givers are morally better than their
rivals, not as meanspirited and hardhearted. This kind of compassion
yields bragging rights for the giver, and "favorite victim"
status for the receiver.
The second
kind of compassion has as its main aim to achieve good results in
the lives of its recipients — good results both in the improvement
of their physical circumstances, and in their sense of pride and
personal development. It is hardly at all concerned with bragging
rights. It is positively opposed to thinking of its recipients as
passive victims. Instead, it envisages them as agents of their own
destiny, needing in the beginning (as everyone does) a little help
from their friends.
This second
kind of compassion, conservative compassion, represents a quite
ancient ideal, never limned better than by the great Jewish writer
of the 13th century, Maimonides, in the subtle gradations of his
"Eight Stages of Charity." (My daughter Jana and I list
these in our book, Tell
Me Why.) The very lowest stage is to give, yes, but in such
a way as to be seen giving. In the highest stage, the giver teaches
the recipient how to create opportunity and wealth for himself,
so that he is no longer dependent on charity, but free and independent.
There are many stages in between, but the upward direction is clear:
toward affirming the dignity and independence of the recipient,
so as to confirm the brotherly respect of the giver for the receiver,
and of the receiver for the giver, thus establishing a kind of equality.
A conservative,
it is said, is one who believes that his grandfather, and his grandfather's
grandfather, back on into the past, were in many ways more virtuous
and wise than he, and so gladly pays attention to tradition, "the
democracy of the dead." In this light, love for the second
kind of compassion is a conservative impulse. Its emphasis on results
insinuates a healthy suspicion of sentimentality and subjective
feelings, and points one, rather, toward a certain realism. It focuses
one's attention on attending to the true condition of others, not
on the state of one's own feelings.
To the extent
that conservatism takes pride in achieving realism and objectivity,
and in avoiding sentimentality, the second kind of compassion is
conservative compassion. It's suitable for "results oriented"
gals and guys.
The first kind
of compassion — liberal compassion — better suits those
who like most of all to be sensitive, and to feel good about themselves,
and to be caring. Who feel part of "a constituency of conscience."
And who feel morally superior to a large majority of others. And
especially superior to those who are hardhearted, results-oriented,
insensitive.
When liberals
are in power, the homeless do not disappear, but stories about the
homeless disappear from the press. When conservatives are in power,
these stories multiply like rabbits. The homeless provide liberals
out of power with a consolatory reminder of their own superior capacities
for caring. In power liberals forget.
Liberals love
victims. They just don't have much emotional energy left over to
be certain that sound results are achieved (from the perspective
of the needy). In fact, when people actually become less needy,
liberals lose their reason for being — and their base of support.
"Reagan Democrats," for instance, have been voting for
conservative changes in the liberal status quo for many years.
The politics
of the last 25 years, in fact, roughly since New York City went
bankrupt under an excess of liberal compassion, might be described
as a steady transition from liberal compassion to conservative compassion.
This transition
could be symbolized by the gradual, towering rise of the gritty
realism of Mayors Koch and Giuliani over Manhattan's liberal "wetlands"
during the long years from Lindsay through Dinkins.
Almost Socratically,
but plaintively, Paul Krugman of the New York Times recently
asked why, throughout the whole nation, there has been such a marked
shift to the right in recent decades. He didn't get it. He took
a weak stab at "growing income inequality." A tired, feeble
stab. Not even Krugman could make it with feeling.
The answer
is simpler. Liberal compassion has been mugged by reality. More
and more liberals are getting the shock in the jaw. Thus, the transition
to conservative compassion continues apace.
|
