If Bush wins the nomination and the election, his commitment and the merit of his views will be put to the test. But whether Bush becomes president or disappears from the scene, it is time to cut through the fog of ideological and partisan criticism of compassionate conservatism and debate the merits of the underlying moral and political theories, which make this approach to social policy worth taking seriously. At least as articulated in Bush's speech, compassionate conservatism has the makings of a coherent public philosophy, one that is entirely consonant with the Founding Fathers' understanding of civil society and government, and with most contemporary Americans' understanding as well. Let's begin by examining the moral foundations of compassionate conservatism. The formulation of subsidiarity that I know best is that of the Roman Catholic Church.
Subsidiarity teaches that charity begins at home.
All calls for assistance, then, must begin as local calls, to be answered where possible by relatives, friends, neighbors, and community-serving ministers. But the demands of subsidiarity go further. Sometimes, families and local institutions fail or fall short in the aid they can offer, as happened on a massive scale during the Great Depression. When a local call reaches a non-working number, we are morally required, as it were, to call long distance. In such cases, subsidiarity rallies larger communities.