Compassion Mongering
Libby Sternberg writes a piece at Hot Air about the New York Times’ editorial response to the choice of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate. I agree with what she says about the political issue, but what strikes me is how perfectly she captures the thinking inside the various mainline leadership circles, especially the church-and-society bureaucracies. That’s not her intended target, but she hits it nonetheless. After quoting the Times whining about a lack of “compassion” in the budget Rep. Ryan wrote in his capacity as House Budget Committee chairman, she goes to write:
This compassion/humane argument always steams me. It’s as if liberals like those at the New York Times are rock solid sure that their approach confirms how compassionate they are, and anyone who disagrees and wants to try other ways to help those in need…is just a scurrilous scumbag who wants to reap profits instead of helping people. Nice caricature. Makes disagreements so much easier when you can smugly assume the mantle of virtue while portraying your adversaries as heartless profiteers.
Whenever I’m confronted with this kind of reasoning, I end up thinking of …drivers who annoy me by waving on left-turners while backing up traffic.
You know the type. You’re sitting in a long line at a light, and someone up ahead gets the notion to “help” an oncoming left-turner by stopping and waving them through the intersection, even when doing so might create a hazard for the turner.
The waver has no idea who is more deserving of moving forward. For all he knows, the line of cars behind him might contain a mother rushing a sick child to the doctor, or a father hurrying to see his daughter in a school play or even a spouse hoping to make it to the airport before her loved one flies off for a deployment…and the left-turner could be a drug dealer on his way to his latest score. No, all that matters to the waver is how good he feels about himself for doing something “nice” for someone else.
That’s what these noxious editorialists are like. They assume because they think the action is humane and compassionate, it must be—after all, they’re thinking of it! And they’re good people! Break out the champagne! Who cares whether the policies they advocate actually work to bring people out of poverty into opportunity? What really matters is how good these do-gooders feel about themselves.
Read it all.
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
8 comments
Liberals in this country have not so much assumed the mantel of compassion, we have given it to them because we have legitimized Government thievery in the name of such bureaucratic compassion.
The liberal can scream from the podium about all the “free” stuff they are going to give the masses because we have made it fashionable for Government to confiscate people’s hard earned money and turn around and hand it to someone else.
While we still wag our fingers at the thief who runs a little ponzi scheme on gullible investors, we shed a little tear for all the “good” done by the largest ponzi scheme ever concocted by manking…..Social Security.
Without legitimized Government stealing, which not only breaks that commandment in the bible but also is unconstitutional, the liberal would nary have a leg to stand on because no one would donate to his silly notions of compassion.
[1] Posted by Capt. Father Warren on 8-13-2012 at 07:46 AM · [top]
Kind of like the Mercedes vehicles and Volvo crossover SUV’s I see in the local TEC parking lot that have “Live Simply so Others May Simply Live” bumper stickers next to their Obama/Biden or COEXIST bumper stickers. The people with these cars think they are sooo compassionate and progressive and do not see the rich irony they present. In all, fairness, vehicles with these bumper stickers are seen other places, like faculty parking lots in prestigious universities or the driveways of GS14+ government employees, but the irony seems richer when they sit in a TEC parking lot.
[2] Posted by Daniel on 8-13-2012 at 08:29 AM · [top]
The law of unintended consequences does not apply to those whose intentions are good.
[3] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 8-13-2012 at 09:10 AM · [top]
So, I have worked since I was 12 years old. I didn’t get anyone pregnant prior to marriage; I didn’t get addicted to drugs; I completed high school and went on and got a degree in business and IT. I pay my taxes.
So, it’s compassionate to take $ out of my family’s pocket and give it to someone because they had a child out of wedlock? Or they are addicted to drugs? Or because they chose to drop out of high school?
Seems to me that we are perhaps rewarding the wrong behavior?
(this is NOT to say there aren’t folks out there that really DO need assistance - but by and large most folks are a result of their own choices - good or bad).
[4] Posted by B. Hunter on 8-13-2012 at 01:49 PM · [top]
And #4, who amongst us, hoping that we can model Christ for the world, will not reach out to those who have made bad choices; but having seen the error of their ways, decide to repent, and take a new path. Who amongst us will not reach out and help, and help generously?
What we refuse to do is enable a one who will not repent and make a new turn, we will not enable their continued bad behavior. Such a one, we have to let go of with love.
And as St. Paul said, those who are able-bodied but do not work, shall not eat.
[5] Posted by Capt. Father Warren on 8-13-2012 at 02:01 PM · [top]
Re [5]. Repent? Repent. RE - PENT! I haven’t pented in the first place. Change? I am, after all, an Episcopalian. Hope and Change seems to have morphed into Fear and Loathing. The Revelation to St. John tells us the good guys win in the end. These days I sure need that reassurance.
[6] Posted by Don+ on 8-13-2012 at 02:37 PM · [top]
Capt Fr Warren says:
<quote>the largest ponzi scheme ever concocted by manking…..Social Security.</quote>
Is that a typo? I wonder if it’s supposed to be “mankind” or “making,” but I think “manking” is great.
[7] Posted by maineiac on 8-13-2012 at 08:23 PM · [top]
Does forgetting the “block” mean I’m not a blockhead, or that I am?
[8] Posted by maineiac on 8-13-2012 at 08:31 PM · [top]
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.