Overview

"Compassionate conservatism" is a political philosophy that stresses using traditionally conservative techniques and concepts in order to improve the general welfare of society. The term itself is often credited to U.S. historian and politician Doug Wead, who used it as the title of a speech in 1979. This label and philosophy has been espoused by U.S. Republican and Democratic politicians since then, though in recent times it has been strongly associated with former U.S. President George W. Bush, who commonly used the term to describe his personal views. 

Compassionate Conservatism as a Political Doctrine 

Compassionate conservatism has been defined as the belief that conservatism and compassion complement each other. A compassionate conservative sees the social problems of the United States, such as health care or immigration, as issues that are better solved through cooperation with private companies, charities, and religious institutions rather than directly through government departments. As former Bush chief speechwriter Michael Gerson put it, "Compassionate conservatism is the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself." Compassionate conservatism argues for policies in support of "traditional families," welfare reform to promote individual responsibility, active policing, standards-based schools, and assistance (economic or otherwise) to poor countries around the world.

George W. Bush began his presidency hoping to make compassionate conservatism his centerpiece. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, he focused less on this theme; however, according to professor and author Ira Chernus, its fundamental ideas became central in his rhetoric about the "War on Terrorism."

The No Child Left Behind Act 

Perhaps one of the greatest examples of compassionate conservatism is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The Act is a United States Act of Congress first proposed by the administration of George W. Bush immediately after he took office in 2001. The bill passed in the U.S. Congress with bipartisan support. NCLB supports standards-based education reform on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills, which they then must give to all students at select grade levels in order to receive federal school funding. The Act does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are rather set by each individual state. NCLB expanded the federal role in public education through annual testing, annual academic progress, report cards, teacher qualifications, and changes in funding.

Provisions of the Act

No Child Left Behind requires all government-run schools receiving federal funding to administer an annual state-wide standardized test to all students. All students in the state must take the same test under the same conditions. Schools that receive Title I funding through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 must make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in test scores (e.g. each year, the school's fifth graders must do better on standardized tests than the previous year's fifth graders).

If the school's results are repeatedly poor, then steps are taken to improve the test performance of the school. Schools that miss AYP for a second consecutive year are publicly labeled as being "in need of improvement" and are required to develop a two-year improvement plan for the subject(s) in which they are under-performing. Students are given the option to transfer to a better school within the school district, if any exists. Missing AYP for a third year forces the school to offer free tutoring and other supplemental education services to struggling students. 

If a school misses its AYP target for a fourth consecutive year, the school is labelled as requiring "corrective action," which might involve wholesale replacement of staff, introduction of a new curriculum, or extending the amount of time students spend in class. A fifth year of failure results in planning to restructure the entire school; the plan is implemented if the school fails to hit its AYP targets for the sixth year in a row. Common options include closing the school, turning the school into a charter school, hiring a private company to run the school, or asking the state office of education to run the school directly.

The act requires states to provide "highly qualified" teachers to all students. Each state sets its own standards for what counts as "highly qualified." Similarly, the act requires states to set "one high, challenging standard" for its students. Each state decides for itself what counts as "one high, challenging standard," but the curriculum standards must apply to all students in the state. If the school provides students' contact information to universities or employers, the Act requires that it also give that access to military recruiters, unless the student opts out.

Critiques of the Act 

Critics argue that NCLB unfairly treats students with disabilities, is incompatible with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and does not have enough provisions to account for those with different learning styles. Critics also argue that punishing poor school performance does not improve education, and that NCLB encourages teachers to narrowly "teach to the test" rather than teaching an expansive and varied curriculum. Some argue that NCLB does not do enough to account for the wide range of factors related to social and economic inequality that cause schools to underperform, and that without this analysis, "corrective" measures do more harm than good. Because of these criticisms, various efforts have been made to reform NCLB; for example, Obama has introduced a comprehensive plan for reform called the Race to the Top Initiative.

Criticism of Compassionate Conservatism

Some critics of George W. Bush have criticized the phrase "compassionate conservatism" as simply sugarcoating traditional conservatism to make it sound more appealing to moderate voters. Others on the left have viewed it as an effort to remove America's social safety net (such as social services) out of the hands of the government and give it to Christian churches and private corporations. Keynesian economist and columnist Paul Krugman has called it a "dog whistle" to the religious right.

Conversely, the policy has also been attacked from the right. Commentator Herman Cain criticized compassionate conservatism as leading to the Bush administration's increased government spending, saying that it "completely betrayed conservative voters and their decades of grassroots activism" and "alienated the party's conservative base," noting Bush policies such as the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, which increased the size of the Medicare program by around $500 billion. Conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg has written that compassionate conservatism as implemented by George W. Bush differs markedly from the theoretical policy concept. He wrote: "...most conservatives never really understood what compassionate conservatism was, beyond a convenient marketing slogan to attract swing voters. The reality—as even some members of the Bush team will sheepishly concede—is that there was nothing behind the curtain..."

Doug Wead at a political conference in Reno, Nevada (September 2011).

Doug Wead, a historian and presidential advisor, is credited with coining the term "compassionate conservative".