Manifestation Of Acute Colinitis

I’m slow. Somebody explain it to me.

Why is this big push for volunteerism a threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of conservatism? Haven’t conservatives been demanding less dependence on government and more involvement by private groups and individuals?

But now, Colin Powell and a carload of U.S. presidents hold a “national summit” to encourage Americans to pitch in and help their neighbors and conservatives are complaining that the whole deal is just another liberal conspiracy.

As someone who generally subscribes to the conservative viewpoint, I am totally baffled by the wave of anti-volunteerism that greeted the Presidents’ Summit for America’s Future, which was held this week in Philadelphia. If people want to rally the masses to help out their fellow man - or help the nation’s kids, whose needs were the focal point of the summit - why should I get all bent out of shape?

If I’m going to insist that government cut back its assistance to the needy by drastically reducing the amount of money spent on welfare and other benefits, then I should understand that somebody ought to pick up the slack. And I should be thrilled that the president, several ex-presidents and a would-be president or two are willing to lead the way in encouraging the American people to make a contribution.

But to hear some of the radio talkmeisters and other high-profile conservatives tell it, the volunteerism movement is nothing but a scheme to trick the American people into accepting a new wave of big government. Or something like that.

Columnist Cal Thomas dismissed the summit as “a stealth way to expand government programs and government’s reach.”

The way Rush Limbaugh went after it, you’d have thought the summit on volunteerism was a million-dollar sleepover in the Lincoln Bedroom.

It would be easy to get the impression that the critics of conservatism have been right all along: We’re not interested merely in cutting the size and scope of government and reducing dependence on government handouts; what we really want is to throw the needy to the wolves.

I have never believed that, but lots of people do. And what are people supposed to believe when conservatives insist that the federal government turn over the care of the less fortunate to the private sector and then holler, “Foul!” when some leaders attempt to motivate the private sector to accept that responsibility?

This is exactly why liberals have been able to stereotype conservatives as mean-spirited, cold-hearted and scandalously lacking in compassion. If we don’t want the government to assist those who need help, and we don’t want private-sector volunteers to help, what do we want?

Do we want the unfortunate to go without help? Do we want the weakest in society to fend for themselves, with no concern and no help from anyone?

If that’s what we want, then we should stand up and say so. We should admit that every nasty, rotten accusation that the liberals have thrown at conservatives and the conservative philosophy has been absolutely true and on target.

Because if conservatives don’t want the government to help and don’t want private citizens to help, well, it’s obvious that we are precisely what the liberals have always said we are: mean-spirited, cold-hearted, scandalously lacking in compassion …

I, for one, hope it isn’t true. I hope that I haven’t been arguing on behalf of a philosophy that would require those who command the ship of plenty to throw its neediest passengers overboard.

So for now, at least, I refuse to accept that premise. Instead, I’ll offer another explanation for conservatives’ trashing of the volunteerism summit: Colin Powell.

Conservatives want no part of Powell as a possible Republican candidate for president in 2000. Since Powell pushed and promoted the summit, conservatives want no part of the summit.

Ridiculous? Maybe. But it’s no more ridiculous than the notion that volunteerism is a liberal plot to promote big government.

xxxx