Is Compassionate Conservatism an Oxymoron?

In the liberal imagination "compassionate conservatism" are two terms that don't sit well together. The shortcomings of the Bush Administration, which has sought provide government services through faith-based initiatives, has further undermined the belief that conservatives are compassionate. This is a shame, argues social scientist Arthur C. Brooks in his book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, since the findings indicate that conservatives happen to be far more charitable than liberals.

In the interests of fair disclosure, I consider myself a moderate, but one who tips slightly to the left of the political spectrum. I must admit, too, that I initially found Brook's conclusions a little hard to swallow. Nevertheless, Brooks is a formidable advocate for his case, an articulate writer, and a researcher to be reckoned with. I suspect most liberals will take umbrage with Brooks' central thesis: namely, that religious conservatism as a cultural force is a sounder basis for producing prosperous, well rounded, and charitable citizens than is secular liberalism. But Brooks' opponents will find themselves hard pressed to rebut the reams of evidence he cites and the thoughtful conclusions he draws from the data.

Brooks claims that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals. This behavior is learned, Brooks argues, within intact families that go to church, where giving is a habit, and where strong community ties reinforce health and happiness. Charity, furthermore, is inextricably linked to prosperity; at least in so far as giving and receiving creates a virtuous cycle that emphasizes character, industriousness, and generosity.