The Politics of Compassion; W. B. Irvine

My colleague reacted to my article not by at tempting to refute its claims,but by commenting on my lack of.compassion.Accordingto him, my viewson the SanFranciscoearthquake showedan incredible degree of "professional detachment." This,of course,was just a sociallyacceptableway of callingme heartless.Thisis a chargeI have run into before, and it is a charge that anyone who opposesBig Government must learn to live with, since by opposing Big Government one must simultaneouslyopposemostof the thingsour gov-, ernment does to "help people." Indeed, a casecanbe made that manyindividu als developliberalpoliticalleanings-and cometo advocatea varietyof governmentaid programs becausethey think that to do otherwiseis to aban don compassion.Before we follow in their foot steps,though,we woulddo wellto think about the nature of compassion. There are, I think, two competing"theories of Professor Irvine teaches philosophy at Wright State Uni versity in Dayton, Ohio.

compassion"-i.e., two differentwaysin whichwe can measurehow caringan individualis. There is, to begin with, what might be called the Mother TeresaTheory of Compassion.Accordingto this theory,whenA feelssorryfor B, whatA shoulddo is expendpersonaleffortand/or personalfinances on B's behalf.This theory used to be popular,but in Americait has been supplantedby what might be calledthe Liberal Theory of Compassion.Ac cording to this theory, when A feels sorry for B, whatA shoulddo is cause C to be taxed so that B can benefitfrom the revenuesthus raised. The Liberal Theory may sound odd, but it has someobviousadvantagesover the competing the ory. In the firstplace,it requiresnowherenear the level of personal commitment that the Mother TeresaTheory requires. In the second place,it is far easier to spend someone else's money than yourown.In short,the LiberalTheoryofCompas sion allowsyou to create the appearance that you are a caringpersonwithoutsimultaneouslyputting a dent in your lifestyle.

Thesetwo theoriesofcompassionwill,ofcourse, differin the "compassionrating"theyassignto var iousindividuals.MotherTeresa,forexample,ratesa perfect10 underthe MotherTeresaTheory(which is why I namedit afterher),but wouldrate perhaps a 2underthe LiberalTheory;someonelikeSenator Edward Kennedy,on the other hand, would pre sumablyfare better under the LiberalTheorythan he wouldunderthe MotherTeresaTheory. WhichTheoryIs Correct? Which theory of compassion is correct? In answeringthisquestion,it is usefulto aska second question: Who, in your opinion, is a better 375 example of a truly compassionate person, Mother Teresa or Edward Kennedy? If you think that Mother Teresa really is the more compassionate person, you willreject the Liberal Theory of Com passion in favor of the Mother Teresa Theory. It is indeed puzzling that anyone would take a person's willingnessto spend government funds on aid programs as evidence that the person is himself compassionate. By way of analogy, it would be absurd to take a person's willingness to increase Federal defense spending as evidence that the per son is himself brave, or to take a person's willing ness to spend government money on athletic pro grams as evidence that the person is himself physically fit. In the same way as it is possible for a "couch potato" to favor government funding of athletic teams, it is possible for a person who lacks compassion to favor various government aid pro grams; and conversely, it is possible for a compas sionate person to oppose these programs.

In general, it is a mistake to use a person's polit ical beliefs as the litmus test of his compassion. If you want to determine how compassionate an individual is, you are wasting your time if you ask for whom he voted; instead, you should ask what charitable contributions he has made and whether he has done any volunteer work lately. You might also inquire into how he responds to the trials and tribulations of his relatives, friends, and neighbors. Politically speaking, there are three important reasons why we should favor private acts of charity over governmental aid programs. In the first place, government aid programs tend to be destructive of Americans' spirit of charity. Many Americans do not make charitable contributions and do not play a personal role in relief efforts because they feel that they have already given-not "at the office," but on April 15th on their 1040 tax forms. In the second place, a case can be made that private acts of charity are more "cost effective" than govern ment aid programs. People are unlikely to give their hard-earned money to an unworthy recipient or to a charitable organization that will waste it.

Those who administer government aid programs, on the other hand, often lack the same motivation to make sure that the money they are spending is spent wisely.In the third place, private acts of char ity are voluntary: No one forces anyone to give money.The same cannot be said of government aid programs, which are funded by tax dollars. It may be true, then, that we opponents of gov ernmentallargess lack compassionas measured by the Liberal Theory of Compassion, at any rate. Fortunately for us, there is another way to measure compassion, and I trust that we fare somewhat bet ter under this alternative yardstick. 0 376 Manipulatingthe Traditional Family by Peter J. Leithart A ccordingto Aaron Wildavsky,the use of . .. taxationandspendingas toolsofbroader policygoalsis the chiefpurpose of fiscal policyin modernwelfarestates."Mostmoney,"he writes, "is spent to affect citizenbehavior rather thanfor directgovernmentaction."lThisfactis lit tIe noted and analyzed.Yet it has becomeso much a part of the politicalatmospherethat evenwriters concernedwith freedom acceptthe premise,and, insteadofchallengingthe practice,seekto achieve their own agendasby the samemeans.Thisarticle is an attempt to examine the premises of "tax manipulation"from the perspectiveof a Christian politicalphilosophyand to determinewhetherthis useoftaxpolicyis consistentwiththe ideaofa free society.