Will McCain learn from Cameron's social justice agenda?

Former chief speechwriter to Bush, Michael Gerson, certainly hopes so. Gerson was the man behind the compassionate conservatism agenda that dominated the early years of Bush's presidency, and later on initiatives like the massive AIDS programme in Africa (some African countries now have a more positive view of America than Americans do!).

He's been in London this week as a guest of ConservativeHome and the Centre for Social Justice.  He was given a crash course in the current state of conservatism in the UK - meeting David Cameron, George Osborne, William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Gove, speechwriter Danny Kruger and numerous others along the way - and articulated his beliefs at a dinner for thirty or so top thinkers and politicians. He has written up his observations in his bi-weekly column for the influential Washington Post (copied below).

He's a little worried about the Conservative Party's evident focus on reassurance and "taking issues off the table", particularly on foreign policy. He's shocked by how far we're letting the HFE bill push ethical boundaries. But he sees something special in the policy work that Iain Duncan-Smith and the Centre for Social Justice have been doing, and the emphasis it has been given by Cameron.

The main problem with the compassionate conservative agenda in America was that the policy work had mostly been done with the resources of a single senator's office, and that other than Gerson and the President there weren't many people in the White House or the GOP who really understood or supported it. In contrast, the CSJ have produced thick tomes of research on the social problems of the day and has had almost twenty MPs embedded (without their Blackberrys) in poverty-fighting projects to see these issues being tackled at the coalface.

Gerson has recently written up his insiders account of working at the White House in a book called Heroic Conservatism. The book offers a compelling vision of an idealistic, not merely anti-government, conservatism that uses the machinery of limited government in a bold and principled way to catalyse the improvement of lives. Cameron is reading it, Osborne will read it, and you really should read it.

This is the agenda that Ben Rogers was talking about on CentreRight the other day as "interventionist conservatism". If McCain can learn from the Tories on the domestic front, they can learn one or two things from him on the international front. It blends taking an active interest in helping the most vulnerable at home through innovative and relational programmes with a willingess to help those who can't help themselves elsewhere - whether they're suffering from terrorism and dictatorship or from a lack of widely-available medicines. It's thoroughly compassionate and thoroughly conservative.

Michael Gerson: Tories who can teach McCain

LONDON -- On a street not far from Parliament stands a neglected historical site that symbolizes the unique closeness of British and American politics. Originally known as Surrey Hall, it is the place where William Wilberforce began his anti-slavery campaign and where Lord Shaftesbury later set up the Ragged School movement, dedicated to the education of poor children. After Abraham Lincoln's assassination, his family and friends donated money to construct a tower above the building, honoring the inspiration Lincoln had taken from these Tory social reformers -- the compassionate conservatives of their day.

As Republicans prepare for the coming presidential election and take stock of their ideological commitments, British conservatives may have some lessons to offer once again.

Certainly the political circumstances faced by Republicans and Tories could not be more different. At the tail end of an eight-year run in power, Republicans are challenged by public weariness. After nearly 11 years in political exile, British conservatives are counting on it. The current Labor prime minister, Gordon Brown, is a man of considerable political strengths. In contrast with the flashier Tony Blair, Brown has a reputation for buckle-down seriousness that appeals to the British middle class.

But after a series of stumbles -- an aborted election, a poorly received budget -- the Labor Party finds itself in the unaccustomed position of being behind conservatives in the polls. Brown's carefulness -- never moving without knowing where his foot will fall -- can come across as dithering. And conservatives are gaining political traction by asking: After a decade of Labor tax increases and massive public spending, why are British social conditions, from crime to welfare dependence to family breakdown, so miserable?

The Conservative leader hoping to replace Brown is David Cameron, who is impossibly young, highly telegenic and ideologically flexible. Since 2005, Cameron has undertaken to diffuse the main Labor attacks against his party by convincing British voters that he will not cut taxes or tamper with their health-care system. His objective, according to one adviser, has been "reassurance, not radicalism." In this, he has succeeded. But some of his fellow conservatives wonder about the depth and definition of his fighting faith.

The Cameron team tends to avoid foreign policy issues, where differences with Brown are marginal. Cameron himself voted for the Iraq war. But according to his colleagues, he voted with doubts, and believes those doubts have been confirmed.

And most American conservatives would find Cameron's positions on moral issues troubling. Under his leadership, the Conservative Party has not taken a stand against recent Labor legislation on bioethics that would allow the moral monstrosity of animal-human hybrids, as well as the creation of "savior siblings" who would have their genetic material harvested for ill children. On life issues in Britain, the slippery slope has become a vertical drop, with a respectable, noncontroversial, scientific barbarism at its bottom.

But the Conservative approach on social policy is increasingly creative. Because Cameron has opted against boldness on economics and foreign policy, his main appeal is likely to be on quality-of-life issues. And he has been wise enough to turn for ideas to an exceptional politician named Iain Duncan Smith. As a former leader of the conservative opposition, Smith was largely discredited by his close identification with the Iraq war. But since losing his leadership post, he has dedicated himself to the cause of social justice within the conservative fold, gaining broad respect in the process. As chair of a policy think tank called the Center for Social Justice, Smith has gathered a group of bright young policy researchers who have published thick volumes of proposals on issues from prison reform and education to crime and family stability.

If this sounds familiar, it should. It is the reincarnation of compassionate conservatism, or perhaps its logical extension. British conservatives are proposing reforms that would allow parents to organize and run their own schools, that require "work for the dole," that encourage marriage and family as a way to fight poverty, and that invite voluntary associations to aid in the provision of welfare services. And the Center for Social Justice is more than a think tank. It invites members of Parliament to spend a week working in anti-poverty programs -- on the condition that they leave their BlackBerrys behind.

These proposals are providing British conservatives with a positive message of social change that is also an alternative to bureaucratic centralization -- a kind of conservative politics, Smith says, that allows people to not only "serve themselves but to serve their neighbor."

Lincoln saw this kind of model in Wilberforce and Shaftesbury. John McCain would be well advised to seek it in Cameron and Smith.

Comments

[Sammy Finn]

Does ConservativeHome often organise behind the scenes visits like this?

[Letters From A Tory]

Don't forget that State governments are far more powerful than English councils and effectively control benefits and support for the disabled, elderly, etc - so even if a McCain government tries to address social justice, it won't be easy.

[Ay Up]

CamOsb will run with this domestically but run away from it internationally. They only care about votes so helping Africans and Iraqis doesn't come into the equation Im afraid.

[Tony Makara]

As David Cameron pointed out after his visit to Rwanda, the key is to make impoverished nations improve their own standard of living and end their dependency on the west. To do this the west should provide free-training in agriculture and business skills to peoples of the developing world. Once the are armed with an education and the skills needed to build their own social infrastructure they will be in a better position to solve their own problems. Often charity, and the good that it does, creates a dependency and brings no closure to the problem. What Africa and other areas of poverty around the world need is knowledge, the knowledge of how to solve the problems they face.

[Editor]

Not often Sammy. This week was a joint effort with the Centre for Social Justice and it went very well. It was great that nearly all the most senior Tories found time to meet Mike Gerson - Sam Coates attended all the meetings - and we held a dinner in Mike's honour on Tuesday night with journalists, think tank leaders and MPs.

[David Belchamber]

As Tony says at 09.55:

"Often charity, and the good that it does, creates a dependency and brings no closure to the problem. What Africa and other areas of poverty around the world need is knowledge, the knowledge of how to solve the problems they face".

It is analagous to work and benefits in this country and I find it absolutely abhorrent that Brown has created such a culture of dependency (in my view he is buying votes with taxpayers' money). Here low earners should not have to depend on benefit if they are earning enough to pay tax but not enough on which to live.

In Africa, I would like to see not only knowledge passed on, as Tony suggests, but also major engineering projects undertaken by the West (like desalination plants) that can be left for the benefit of the local people to use, not only to feed themselves but also possibly to stimulate the economy.

[Pisaboy]

I don't know if the lack of comments on this means that nobody has anything to add (good!) or if nobodys interested in this kind of agenda (bad!).

[Tony Makara]

David Belchamber, what you say is very true. The tax-credits system was designed with one objective in mind, to trap working people into the dependency culture and to make them more inclined to support the government that is topping up their wage. As you correctly say the only way we will ever end welfare dependency is through work that is self-supporting. The fact that people can claim more money out of the state while working than if they were unemployed just goes to show how skewed Labour's tax-credit system is. Being in work ought to mean being able to live independently of the state, but under Labour being in work now often means being beholden to the state. I'd like to see George Osborne abolish the tax-credits system and replace it with one that encourages work but at the same time does not trap working people into welfare dependency. People will never be free of poverty while they are forced to take hand-outs from the state.

[AHR]

Why highlight the views of one of the architects of a universally acknowledged failed Administration? The Bush Administration failed in the implementation of policy and politically. It has left the American conservative movement in shambles.

The most productive lesson the Tories can learn from Gerson is not to follow his failed lead.

[Yet Another Anon]

I don't really see that John McCain has much to learn regarding social agenda, he has a well developed one of his own and will not want the liberal domestic policies of the 3 main UK poitical parties which anyway could not be stomached by US voters.

[Deputy Editor]

AHR, I suggest you read the book and then decide on the specifics of what we should and shouldn't learn from the administration. Gerson talks openly about the the things that worked and the things that didn't.

[DBX]

I don't see from this list of comments much chance of the Tories seriously moving the debate. I don't see commenters here adopting a clear enough stand. I'm stunned that the Tories have not given closer scrutiny to the HFE bill. I'm disappointed that they were not able to fight more effectively against Gordon Brown's sneaky elimination of the 10 percent income tax band.

At the same time, the moaning about dependency culture carries echoes of the 1970s and 1980s, yet what did it accomplish? Not much, if you measure government by share of GDP or welfare dependency. Better to acknowledge that earned income tax credits DO incentivise work, and that earned income credits (especially as part of a highly progressive/strongly graduated income tax) are the single most likely thing there is move people off of welfare. If the Tories want to be really adventurous, maybe after making inheritance tax progressive/graduated rather than the current flat rate monstrosity they should propose enlarging standard income tax exemptions rather than cutting the top rate -- a larger standard exemption is a tax cut for everyone who works and a good many who are retired.

If you leave more money into the hands of everyone, rather than a handing out lot for just a few at the top, lower to middle income people are much more able to afford the full cost of public services, thereby reducing demand for the government to subsidise them. And isn't getting rid of subsidies kind of integral to personal choice? I would think so.