Better a bleeding heart than none at all.

The title is from a bumper sticker found near Austin, TX, a very liberal city in a very conservative state. Conservative columnist George Will comments on that sticker and those like it saying, "the facts are a hostile witness." He cites data from a report by Arthur Brooks at Syracuse University titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism." Conservatives are much more likely to donate to charity than liberals. He later refines this to religious conservatives (secular conservatives donate least). The reason appears to be religious affiliation -- and the percentage of Democrats who describe themselves as having no religion has quadrupled since the 1970s. Will also muses that Dems seem more likely to let government do their giving for them. Their own giving can't make up for a government that properly cares for the poor. In this discussion I note Will does not make a distinction between conservative government and conservative individuals. As I've noted with Katrina and other issues, our conservative government seems uninterested in helping the poor.

Contrast that with ideas taken from a review of two books of essays on the state of conservatism today. The Reagan years brought together four segments of conservatism, smoothing over the conflicts between them:

"Traditionalists value continuity, order and hierarchy; libertarians prize personal freedom and social spontaneity; neoconservatives blend the New Deal’s idealistic spirit with conservatism’s muscular nationalism; and religious conservatives fight relativism, secularism and immorality. … Libertarians and traditionalists disagree on the relative importance of liberty and virtue; many neocons care not a fig about abortion, while religious conservatives often seem to care about little else. "

But Bush has been playing each off against the others, getting all four strands upset with him and each other. Will the conservative movement as a whole survive? Opinions vary.

To point up the contrast between conservative government and individuals: Would a religious conservative government care more about the poor? (Alas, such a government would care a great deal about what goes on in bedrooms.) Would a less religious government not chase so many Dems away from religion and personal giving? When I wrote before of the conservative belief that "people who are better off are better people" and the poor deserve what they get, which branch of conservatism is talking?