|
 |  | |
|
|
about Asia Buzz
Culture on Demand: The Noodle Guide
Compassionate conservatism vs. Secular ethics
By STAN STALNAKER
August
4, 2000
Web posted at 10:30 p.m. Hong Kong time, 10:30 a.m. EDT
Here in Asia, the activities of the Republican Party in the United States and George W. Bush's nomination for the upcoming presidential election has raised little more than a yawn. Perhaps everyone is so distracted with making money in today's vibrant economy that no one had time to stop and notice the big party in Philadelphia. Maybe we're all just too consumed with our own geopolitics, island coups, and despot-watching. Or it could be that it's August, and everyone is away in Langkawi.
|
INTERACTIVE |
|
Ticked off at Asia Buzz? Turned on? Talk back to
TIME
|
|
But as boring as the convention may be, there is one morsel of politically correct, eyebrow-raising bit of propaganda that deserves a few seconds of attention: compassionate conservatism. As any new ideology must, it has an alternative brother: secular ethics, championed by the Dalai Lama in his millennial address this year.
| |
ASIA BUZZ |
Letter from Japan: Ode to Summer
Give me blue skies, bright stars and singing cicadas
- Friday, August 4, 2000
Asia Buzz: Time Bomb
This column will self-destruct in five seconds
- Thursday, August 3, 2000
Asia Buzz: Rough Weather Ahead?
Indonesia could pose serious problems for Australia
- Wednesday, August 2, 2000
Asia Buzz: Checkout This
Say no to soggy bananas
- Tuesday,
August 1, 2000
Asia Buzz: Okinawa Shame
And I'm not talking about U.S. Marines
- Monday,
July 31, 2000
Culture on Demand: The Next Big Thing
Let's get warm and fuzzy
- Saturday,
July 29, 2000
|
|
ASIAWEEK |
Intelligence
The story behind today's news from the editors of Asiaweek
|
|
Ah, the latest buzzwords. They sound, so... warm and fuzzy. But what do they mean? That you practice one thing but you smilingly tolerate things you disagree with? That you're fiscally responsible but socially minded? That you are moral and secular--as if that is a new thing? Does any of this apply to Asia? The answers lie, of course, at the local dai pai dong noodle shop, where most issues of any importance can be dealt with over a steaming bowl of noodles, fishy parts and cha (tea). Consider a couple of random situations:
Situation A:
Over fried shrimp cakes with the marketing director, you discover your boss is quietly pulling sponsorship money from the company to finance a shady building deal in Phuket--that just happens to benefit orphans. Do you:
a) reply that this is an example of the private sector filling a social role, albeit a bit irresponsibly to the bottom line, noting that it's a creative use of sponsorship (compassionate conservative);
or b) reply that the money could be better used in donations to existing organizations that help children, knowing full well that fewer of the funds will actually reach the kids (secular ethics).
Situation B:
Pretend for a moment that you are very rich and extremely powerful (not just rich and powerful!). Over the rare beef soup and cuttlefish salad, your spouse complains that the amah [maid] wants to go back to the Philippines for Rizal Day, which would conflict with your plans for New Years Eve.
As the compassionate conservative, do you sympathize with the person who serves you throughout the year, grant the leave, and feel very good about yourself for such goodwill--while secretly harboring a feeling of superiority and martyrdom for your own ruined festival?
Or, do you explain that despite the fact such leave was not listed in the contract, it will be granted because you are at secular peace with yourself, and do not need to worry about such ethereal things when family visits are at stake?
The issue with these "new paradigms" is that there is little difference between the end results, but there is in the path to that result. Yes, the orphans still get a new house, and the maid still goes on vacation, but the internal attitude of the decision making party is different.
Compassionate conservatism, from what I gather so far, smacks of an election committee trying to come up with a term that allows them to hold onto a closed right-wing constituency while superficially and artificially embracing a wider audience of alternate voters. It is elitist, and slightly insulting to those who need "compassion". By no means does it embrace those outside the closed circle as new conservatives.
On the other hand, secular ethics imply a sense of inner tranquility that obviates traditional morality. It dictates that your own perspective is paramount, and puts the emphasis on your personal spirituality, which fosters a sense of superiority to others around you. I'm not saying that the Gore camp embraces such a stance, but the Clinton era certainly seems to demonstrate a sense of personal morality with little regard to traditional standards...er, Lewinsky, er, Tibet.
For Asia, it's an interesting choice. Does a compassionately conservative America play nicely on human rights, while harboring feelings of moral resentment? Or does it just not care as long as it is true to itself? Neither answer is particularly comforting for the orphans of the region, because the end result is more posturing with little definitive action.
Ticked off at Asia Buzz? Turned on? Talk back to
TIME
Write
to TIME at mail@web.timeasia.com
Search
for recent
Asia Buzz
TIME Asia home
|
|
LATEST HEADLINES:
|
Click Here for the latest regional analysis from TIME Asia
|
|
|
