Remember 'Compassionate Conservatism'?

"I'm not concerned about the very poor," says this year's GOP front-runner.

By JAMES TARANTO

"I don't much like the phrase 'compassionate conservatism,' " National Review's Jonah Goldberg wrote in December 1998. Goldberg objected to the implied opposition between conservatism and compassion. "It's one thing for the Left to do the disservice to language and logic," Goldberg wrote: "It is quite another thing when conservatives sell the store on their own."
"I'm not concerned about the very poor," this year's GOP front-runner said this morning. Say what you will about Mitt Romney, he's no compassionate conservative. You'd think Goldberg would be happy, but no. "What Is Wrong With This Guy?" the National Reviewer demands.
For the context of the remark, which Romney made in an interview with CNN's Soledad O'Brien, let's go to Politico:

"I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor--we have a safety net there," he said Wednesday. "If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich--they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

O'Brien jumped in, asking him to clarify his statement that he's not concerned with the very poor. "I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, 'That sounds odd,'" she said.

"Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad," Romney replied. "I said, I'm not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, then I will repair it."

"But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans," he added. "My campaign--you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That's not my focus."

When Romney says "the very poor," we take him to mean what sociologists call the "underclass," defined by Gunnar Myrdal as "an unprivileged class of unemployed, unemployables, and underemployed who are more and more hopelessly set apart from the nation at large and do not share in its life, its ambitions and its achievements."

Associated Press

Gov. Bush in 1999, heyday of "compassionate conservatism."

We disagree with Romney's assertion that "we have a safety net" for that segment of the population. Instead, we have a system of perverse incentives that encourage self-destructive behavior and dependence on government. It's also worth noting that since Myrdal's day, "underclass" problems have increasingly bubbled up to the "working class," as Charles Murray documents in his new book, "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010."
But Romney is a politician, not a sociologist, and Goldberg and others are criticizing him for his rhetoric, not his analysis. On political and rhetorical grounds, we would like to defend him.
Goldberg likens the out-of-context Romney quote to another one, "I like to fire people." The latter was politically tone-deaf for sure. Many of the voters Romney seeks to attract have had the experience of being fired or worrying about being fired--or, for that matter, of being forced by exigency to fire people, a task most managers do not relish.
Pollster Kellyanne Conway, an adviser to Newt Gingrich, tells NRO's Robert Costa that Romney's remark is a "startling reminder that Romney may not be the next John McCain, but the next John Kerry," and evidence that the front-runner "does not share a connective tissue with the average American." Is that how "the average American" will see it? Color us skeptical.
Few Americans, and fewer still among the pools of Republican primary voters and November swing voters, have the experience of being--or, perhaps more to the point, of thinking of themselves as being--among "the very poor." Socioeconomic class may be a useful analytical concept, but it looms quite small in the lived experience of Americans. Most denizens of both "Fishtown" (Murray's emblematic working-class city neighborhood) and "Belmont" (the suburban upper-middle class counterpart) surely think of themselves as solidly middle-class. In excluding only "the very poor" and "the very rich," Romney means to emphasize the breadth of his concern.
Imagine a politician who stated the converse of what Romney said: "I'm not concerned about the middle class--we have a safety net there. I'm concerned about the very poor, the 5% to 10% of Americans who are struggling." Even in a time of relative affluence, that would be a politically boneheaded thing to say, notwithstanding that we do have a middle-class safety net in the form of such programs as unemployment insurance and Social Security.
Or imagine President Obama trying to capitalize on Romney's remark by emphasizing his own profound concern for "the very poor." Romney would sound like a hardheaded realist next to the bleeding-heart liberal who has presided over 9% unemployment.
And Romney's approach actually is hardheaded and realistic. The current difficulties of the economy are much more urgent, and more tractable, than the social problems associated with the "underclass," which, as we argued last month, have their origins in deep cultural changes that are beyond the capability of any president to undo.
In a follow-up post responding to some defenses of Romney, Goldberg writes: "Given the mainstream press's obvious desire to paint Republicans as heartless and cruel, it behooves Republican candidates not to make their job easier." Goldberg's objection to Romney's compassionless conservatism turns out to be the same as his objection to Bush's compassionate conservatism: that both perpetuate the stereotype of conservatives as mean. We guess we've become inured to liberal stereotypes--or, to put it another way, we're not concerned about them.
Fear of a Black Tea
A headline at Ricochet.com promises to recount "The Conversation With a Florida Tea Partier That Should Scare Every Republican." As you can imagine, the scary Tea Partier, whom author Ben Domenech identifies only as Rebecca, isn't happy with the Republican presidential field:

"I don't trust him, and I don't think he can win. He is utterly unaware of how offensive his disconnect with the average American is. He drops $10K bets like it's nothing. He thinks $342,000 isn't very much to make in a year," Rebecca said. "I don't begrudge him his wealth - he worked for it and earned it and that is admirable. But I hate his lack of awareness of how super-wealthy he is. His flip-flops are legendary."

"Oh, and he invented Obamacare."

"I see a Romney nomination causing Tea Partiers like me to tune out. . . ."

Rebecca goes on in this vein for some time. But then she flip-flops: "It honestly makes me want to skip the election, but Obama scares me too much to do that." She doesn't quite say she'll hold her nose and vote for Romney, but she does reveal she did just that for John McCain in 2008. We are not without sympathy for Rebecca, but it's difficult to see why anyone should regard her as scary.
And Didn't Gingrich Vote for a Lot of Pork When He Was in Congress?
"Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign said it 'unfortunately' was behind a controversial robocall going out in Florida Tuesday that accused rival Republican Mitt Romney of forcing Holocaust survivors to eat non-kosher food," WSJ.com reports:

Joe DeSantis, a top aide to the former House speaker, said that the robocall had not gone through "the normal vetting process" in the campaign and that there would not be similar calls on this topic in Nevada, the next state to hold its presidential nominating contest.

"It should have been caught," he said.

At issue was a cut in Medicaid subsidies to nursing homes. Meanwhile, Reason.com quotes from a Gingrich Florida speech:

"I am unalterably opposed to the use of Sharia in an American court," he said, eliciting one of the larger cheers of the afternoon.

"I am comfortable with legal immigrants of every background, including Islam, who want to come to America. I have no confusion in my mind about our background, our laws, our civilization. If they wish to join us, that's fine. We are not going to accept Sharia, " he said.

How would he feel about halal meals in Medicaid-funded nursing homes?
And a Third Clown Wrote a Column About It
"On Saturday night, at precisely 9:19 and 30 seconds, my iPhone, my iPad, my computer and, for all I know, my toaster were informed that Herman Cain had endorsed Newt Gingrich. The ping-ping of the devices suggested that something momentous had happened--alerts from both The Post and the New York Times--but in fact it was just additional evidence that the Republican Party has become a circus: One clown endorsed another."--Richard Cohen, Washington Post, Jan. 31
First We Occupy the Town, Then We Paint It Red
"Time to Run for Office, 99 Percenters," Katrina vandel Heuvel, editor of The Nation, exhorts in her Washington Post column:

This is not meant to understate the impact of corporate money in our system; it is meant to suggest that we can defeat it. Doing so will take a protracted battle, both against corporate money itself and the causes that deploy it. But it will take something else too; it will take representatives of the 99 percent to step forward and run for elective office. Outside mobilization is essential, but we need 99 percenters on the inside, too.

She must be nostalgic for the communist era, when "candidates" routinely won "elections" with upward of 99% of the vote.
Oh, the Irony!
"As I write at the end of the World Economic Forum in Davos, I'm struck by the sense that there is a lot of news this year, but ironically, it wasn't made in Davos."--Timothy Shriver, Puffington Host, Jan. 31
Metaphor Alert
"Mitt Romney galloped to victory in Florida, but it was an expensive coup. He took a hit at the bank, outspending his rivals. He also paid a political price. Romney landed a devastating blow to Gingrich's candidacy, but the bruise from the fight remains, and it may sting as he scrambles to assert himself as the probable nominee. Conservatives, already skeptical of Romney's politics, are grumbling about his internecine aggression. Granted, Gingrich is hardly an angel, and simmering discomfort over Romney's ruthlessness will not derail him. But a growing unease with Romney's big-dollar blitz may stir sympathy for Gingrich and encourage the former House speaker to carry on with vengeance."--Robert Costa, National Review Online, Jan. 31