The Incomplete Conservative

Scan the headlines, and who can fail to be struck by our failure to address one of the fundamental issues of society that have plagued us since time immemorial. That question is, what is to be done about social inequality?

Social inequality, it is plain to see, is virtually absent as political controversy. It is gone from the highest realms of politics. In its place, we have issues of tangential significance to that subject: Middle class economic pressures; health woes of obese children; a culture out of control. But few commentators seem to publicly grapple with the question of why society is unequal, and how, or whether, anything should be done about it.

It is something of a travesty that in a country as rich as the United States, we still have pockets of deep poverty and hopelessness. Impoverished hamlets in the Appalachian mountains, the inner cities, and border towns all share a shameful past of neglect which seem to be no one's concern today.

Why is this?

Traditionally, it was the left that championed the causes of the poor. The left stood for the underdog, the working man, or the black man or other oppressed minority. But today, the left hates the right more than it loves these traditional causes. And so blogs on the left castigate the President and deem him unworthy of the post. Trendsetters consider themselves praiseworthy if they find a way to condemn their opponent, rather than contribute answers to the questions that we face.

In other words, the left has abandoned its traditional role of leadership in favor of a position of defense, attacking others because it feels it must, and not because it feels it is right.

This is easy to see, on the left. But what of the right?

Are there any deep thinkers of the right who have solutions to permanent problems of poverty and injustice in society?

I think it is easy to say that we should leave everyone to exercise their freedom to do what they can within the law. It is easy to say that free enterprise solves all, or that everything will unfold under the will of God. But it is, at the same time, an abdication of the laws of humanity and compassion to pretend that the economy cannot fail, or that the social safety net is sufficient for the least of us. Quite obvious, none of these latter are necessarily true.

So where is the conservative to draw from in his desire to be compassionate? Wasn't the President the one who advocated a compassionate form of conservatism?

Aside from economic principles, on one hand, and religious principles, on the other, what are the sources of conservative compassion?