The End of Compassionate Conservatism?

Continuing with the theme of assessing compassionate conservatism -- which, to my knowledge, not one Republican candidate since the long-departed Sam Brownback has given a serious mention (Huckabee offers only occasional stabs, not any coherent policy)....  Here's Michael Gerson's perspective on Bush's commitment to the idea (the faith-based initiative, AIDS/malaria funding, etc.), and why the idea hasn't stuck.

Bush has received little attention or thanks for his compassionate reforms. This is less a reflection on him than on the political challenge of compassionate conservatism. The conservative movement gives the president no credit because it views all these priorities -- foreign assistance, a federal role in education, the expansion of an entitlement -- as heresies, worthy of the stake. Liberals and Democrats offer no praise because a desire to help dying Africans, minority students and low-income seniors does not fit the image of Bush's cruelty that they wish to cultivate.

Compassionate conservatism is thus a cause without a constituency -- except for the large-hearted man I first met in 1999 and who, on Monday night, proposed to double global AIDS spending once again.

I agree that Bush deserves credit.  But I think it's also undeniable that his focus on compassionate conservatism got crowded out not only by opposition in both parties, but by his focus on fighting terrorism and going to war in Iraq.

Commenters are remarking now on John McCain's lack of interest in any more than a few domestic issues -- and empowering the poor doesn't seem to be one of them.  Although maybe global assistance to the needy would trigger McCain's "national greatness" sympathies?  A running mate like Brownback could articulate the theme in the campaign, although it seems to require someone as hard-nosed as Dick Cheney to make the vice president's office work as a policy engine. 

Tom