Compassion isn’t squishy. It’s meant as an offset to conservatism’s major thrust, which is strict limitations on the growth of government. A conservative regime is going to leave people who fall through the cracks. That’s where compassion comes in. Either by private philanthropy or limited government assistance, a sense of compassion leads the conservatives to help those in need. Conscience would mean something very similar here. Compassionate conservatism is still an idea that makes sense, but it is now associated with W, who has become a political albatross.

Compassionate Conservatism isn’t dead, it was never alive in the first place.

reddopto wrote:
“A conservative regime is going to leave people who fall through the cracks.”
True…but so would even a liberal administration. People at that level of government are used to dealing with enormity of numbers – people, dollars, etc. – and so tend to miss details such as the struggles of the poor and the working poor. What separates those who still have a conscience from those who don’t would be in how, or whether, they care about the enormity of the number of poor, or do they continue to overlook those cracks and the people who fall through them.
We’ve witnessed since at least around the time of Gingrich, Delay, Armey, et.al., how the Republican party has demonstrated not only contempt for the poor in this country but also how its members value party position over the good of the nation and its non-wealthy citizens. There are exceptions (Huckabee comes to mind) but overall I see few politicians of either party who demonstrate that they still have a conscience.

reddopto wrote:
“A conservative regime is going to leave people who fall through the cracks.”
True…but so would even a liberal administration. People at that level of government are used to dealing with enormity of numbers – people, dollars, etc. – and so tend to miss details such as the struggles of the poor and the working poor. What separates those who still have a conscience from those who don’t would be in how, or whether, they care about the enormity of the number of poor, or do they continue to overlook those cracks and the people who fall through them.
We’ve witnessed since at least around the time of Gingrich, Delay, Armey, et.al., how the Republican party has demonstrated not only contempt for the poor in this country but also how its members value party position over the good of the nation and its non-wealthy citizens. There are exceptions (Huckabee comes to mind) but overall I see few politicians of either party who demonstrate that they still have a conscience.

Conscience Conservatism? That’s redundant.
The lack of conscience makes one a Liberal/Progressive.
Like I have always said, to support Liberal/Progressive ideology is to be a ruthless, heartless person but claim otherwise. Marxism, abortion/hedonism, sexual perversion promoted as OK, all of the things that Liberalism/Progressiveism lives for, are the opposite of Conservativism.
Once a person desires and achieves a conscience (usually after wasting much of life on selfishness), they become a Conservative.
Though in today’s slick world of spin and political/social double-speak, it is good to reiterate what a Conservative actually and factually realliy is.
Helping the poor means helping the poor understand how not to be poor and not enslaving them to a welfare/slavery class of needy handout servants. Helping the poor is encouraging them with better role models not to engage in worthless selfish sexuality and having either babies out of wedlock, or killing them for convenience or engaging in perversion and demanding that it be taught to children.
Helping everyone is helping them become a Conservative. It both grows a conscience in the individual, and it helps to grow a better society. A society where individuals control their own destinies through the fruits of their own labor.
It takes a conscience to realize the value of being a Conservative.
It takes a lack of integrity and intelligence to take the easier path of selfishness and laziness. This is the reason so many people of today, after being hypnotized by MTV/Vanity Fair indoctrination are supporting Democrats and just giving up on society and letting the Liberals rule them. Just visit a public school for the proof.
Once a conscience is achieved – always connected with maturity and intelligence – then Conservativism is grasped.

I think, and I’m probably not alone here, that it’s time to leave the conservative/liberal labels behind. We can use whatever modifiers to help illucidate our causes but maybe it’s time for us to allow and acknowledge something new. They don’t hold up and people have different definitions of what it is to be conservative and liberal. I think I’m both. I think Jesus was both. It depends on the issue at hand. Hence to say one is all good and the other all bad, is pointless. They are just words for expressing something else. When I read my favorites: Tolstoy, Gandhi, and the Gospels I’m frequently hit over the head by a statement or thought that is completely contrary to my notions of liberal/conservative and how I would approach things. So maybe there is a way above these useless words. Let’s help the poor. What’s that? Whatever politicians say to win votes is otherwise.

What if I teach my students that Ghandi was 6-foot eight-inch Swede?
There is a way to show that I am wrong.
It boils down to who is right and who is wrong. When using the Bible as a guide, Liberals/Progressives are wrong so often on Biblical truth, it is fair to say that they are wrong on Biblical truth.

Well I’m all for testing against scripture.
Conservatism, certainly American conservatism consists of largely of three strands. Technocratic libertarianism practised by the likes of Ron Paul and Andrew Sullivan, pseudo-religious authoritarianism (aka to be rich is a sign of god’s blessing, therefore the poor are to blame for their own misfortunes) practised by the likes of Robertson etc etc (and demonstrated by Donny’s post here), and “chosen nation” neo-con artistry (which underpins certainly Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz’s world views and turns up to some degree in the patriot pastors and certainly the Reconstructionists.
I have tested all these against scripture and all three fail hopelessly. Libertarianism denies community and fails against Leviticus 19, 20 and 24, and is utterly at odds with Luke 6. Praising the rich for their situation and Blaming the poor for their predicament fails when tested against Amos 3-5, Michah Luke 6, Luke 11, Luke 16, Luke 18, Luke 20, and Acts 2, amongst many others. Chosen nation status fails agains Luke 20, the triumphal entry, and “my kingdom is not of this world” John 18.
What all three strands have is such a paranoia that state sponsored solutions (presumably derived from the McCarthyite delusion) that they have come to have a contempt for structural solutions to the sufferings of the powerless. This seems to me to flatly contradict much of the Torah, and such contempt was not present in e.g. British conservatism pre-Thatcher (and what it is now rethinking itself as) or European Christian Democracy – both of which are generally considered conservative. Perhaps, David, learning from the past and from abroad might be your way out.

Here’s a clue:
http://dict.die.net/conservative/
Source: WordNet (r) 1.7
conservative
adj 1: resistant to change
4: unimaginatively conventional
grow.