Why the Move to the Right?
From liberal compassion to conservative compassion, that’s why.

By Michael Novak, the George F. Jewett scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Novak is the author, most recently, of the upcoming On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding.
January 14, 2002 8:20 a.m.

hy has the country moved to the right? The answer isn't what liberals think. It's a growth and maturing in the nation's understanding of compassion.

There are, actually, two kinds of compassion. The first kind has as its aim to establish the moral superiority of the giver, with only a little concern for actual results in the life of the receiver. It has a partisan edge, to show that its givers are morally better than their rivals, not as meanspirited and hardhearted. This kind of compassion yields bragging rights for the giver, and "favorite victim" status for the receiver.

The second kind of compassion has as its main aim to achieve good results in the lives of its recipients — good results both in the improvement of their physical circumstances, and in their sense of pride and personal development. It is hardly at all concerned with bragging rights. It is positively opposed to thinking of its recipients as passive victims. Instead, it envisages them as agents of their own destiny, needing in the beginning (as everyone does) a little help from their friends.

This second kind of compassion, conservative compassion, represents a quite ancient ideal, never limned better than by the great Jewish writer of the 13th century, Maimonides, in the subtle gradations of his "Eight Stages of Charity." (My daughter Jana and I list these in our book, Tell Me Why.) The very lowest stage is to give, yes, but in such a way as to be seen giving. In the highest stage, the giver teaches the recipient how to create opportunity and wealth for himself, so that he is no longer dependent on charity, but free and independent. There are many stages in between, but the upward direction is clear: toward affirming the dignity and independence of the recipient, so as to confirm the brotherly respect of the giver for the receiver, and of the receiver for the giver, thus establishing a kind of equality.

A conservative, it is said, is one who believes that his grandfather, and his grandfather's grandfather, back on into the past, were in many ways more virtuous and wise than he, and so gladly pays attention to tradition, "the democracy of the dead." In this light, love for the second kind of compassion is a conservative impulse. Its emphasis on results insinuates a healthy suspicion of sentimentality and subjective feelings, and points one, rather, toward a certain realism. It focuses one's attention on attending to the true condition of others, not on the state of one's own feelings.

To the extent that conservatism takes pride in achieving realism and objectivity, and in avoiding sentimentality, the second kind of compassion is conservative compassion. It's suitable for "results oriented" gals and guys.

The first kind of compassion — liberal compassion — better suits those who like most of all to be sensitive, and to feel good about themselves, and to be caring. Who feel part of "a constituency of conscience." And who feel morally superior to a large majority of others. And especially superior to those who are hardhearted, results-oriented, insensitive.

When liberals are in power, the homeless do not disappear, but stories about the homeless disappear from the press. When conservatives are in power, these stories multiply like rabbits. The homeless provide liberals out of power with a consolatory reminder of their own superior capacities for caring. In power liberals forget.

Liberals love victims. They just don't have much emotional energy left over to be certain that sound results are achieved (from the perspective of the needy). In fact, when people actually become less needy, liberals lose their reason for being — and their base of support. "Reagan Democrats," for instance, have been voting for conservative changes in the liberal status quo for many years.

The politics of the last 25 years, in fact, roughly since New York City went bankrupt under an excess of liberal compassion, might be described as a steady transition from liberal compassion to conservative compassion.

This transition could be symbolized by the gradual, towering rise of the gritty realism of Mayors Koch and Giuliani over Manhattan's liberal "wetlands" during the long years from Lindsay through Dinkins.

Almost Socratically, but plaintively, Paul Krugman of the New York Times recently asked why, throughout the whole nation, there has been such a marked shift to the right in recent decades. He didn't get it. He took a weak stab at "growing income inequality." A tired, feeble stab. Not even Krugman could make it with feeling.

The answer is simpler. Liberal compassion has been mugged by reality. More and more liberals are getting the shock in the jaw. Thus, the transition to conservative compassion continues apace.