Bush's 'compassionate conservatism' would eschew failed big-government policies of the past

George W. Bush pledges to restore honor and dignity to the White House. We need it. I believe he will do it.

As Governor of Texas, Bush has conducted himself with integrity. He is a good man. That is an essential qualification for office in the 2000 presidential election.

Though the Gore campaign has deployed all of its arts to impugn Bush's record, his consistent and undeniable popularity with ordinary Texans — Democrats as well as Republicans — reflects an impressive list of achievements in areas such as education, tax policy and prison reform. Texas voters do not hesitate to throw out incumbents who fail to get the job done. Bush himself came into office by dislodging sitting Governor Ann Richards in 1994. By contrast, after four years of experience with Bush's leadership, the people reelected him by an overwhelming margin.

Writing in The New Republic, Frank Forer has observed that Bush's approach to social and economic policy has been decisively shaped by Catholic social thought. This is truly a tradition of "compassionate conservatism." As interpreted by John DiIulio, Richard John Neuhaus and others who have influenced Bush's thinking, it stresses the importance of private property and free enterprise, but steers clear of forms of libertarianism that compromise social solidarity and reject common responsibility to assist those in need.

At the same time, this tradition eschews collectivist approaches to social welfare —approaches that have proven to be inefficient, ineffective and even counterproductive to the cause of the disadvantaged. It views the role of government as strictly subsidiary to that of the institutions of civil society — above all families and communities of faith — and it is careful to avoid policies (including excessive taxation) that undermine these institutions and usurp their authority.

A key element of Bush's social program involves cooperation between government and faith-based providers of social services. While Vice President Al Gore has joined Bush in calling for such cooperation — thus worrying hard-core secularists who disapprove — Bush has made clear, and Gore has not, that faith-based social service providers should not be pressured to mute their religious message as the price of participation.

Bush promises to assemble an outstanding foreign policy team, including Dick Cheney and, in all likelihood, Colin Powell as Secretary of State and Condoleezza Rice as National Security Adviser. Bush favors a realistic and sensibly moderate role for the United States in international affairs, avoiding the extremes of isolationism and military adventurism.

On "social issues," there is a clear divide between the candidates. People who believe, as I do, in traditional principles of sexual morality, marriage and the sanctity of human life, have every reason to favor Bush; people who reject these principles have no less reason to support Gore.

Abortion is, of course, a central issue. Most Americans support greater restriction on deliberate feticide than current Supreme Court doctrine permits, though most wish to keep abortion legal in "hard cases." Bush's judicial nominees would favor reversal of Roe v. Wade to permit a democratic resolution of the question. Bush himself would propose policies in line with public opinion. For example, he would restore restrictions on the use of federal money to promote abortion, sign a meaningful ban on partial-birth and other late-term abortions and reform adoption laws to make it easier for pregnant women in difficult circumstances to choose life.

I have two key differences with Bush. First, I do not believe, as both Bush and Gore do, in the death penalty. I acknowledge, however, that capital punishment is permitted under the Constitution, and a solid majority of Americans favor it. As governor, Bush has handled death penalty cases in a conscientious and morally serious way. There is nothing in his record akin to Bill Clinton's high-profile return to Arkansas in the middle of the 1992 New Hampshire primary to supervise the execution of brain-damaged Ricky Ray Rector.

The second difference concerns China. Bush and Gore — as well as President Clinton and the Republican leadership in Congress — think that unrestricted trade will lead China toward democracy and greater respect for human rights. This radically underestimates the will, strength and cunning of China's communist dictatorship. Solidarity with Tibetan and Chinese victims of persecution demands a tougher policy. Should Bush become president, as I hope he will, this is a matter to which he should give careful and prayerful reconsideration. Robert P. George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. He can be reached at rgeorge@princeton.edu.