Fin

I’m going to assume that my coauthors and readers will agree that Fantastiko has, unfortunately, lost much of its momentum over the last month or two. So, I’m going to do myself a favor—for piece of mind and sense of closure—by shutting it down.

It’s easy to take this blog too seriously and also to unfairly dismiss its usefulness. For my own benefit, let me take a moment to justify its existence and to review our efforts.

Originally, Fantastiko was published as a platform to help us all get through the election aftermath. I only want to speak for myself here, so I’ll just say that it did a hell of a lot, for me, to accomplish this goal. It served its purpose: to provide a cathartic, responsible, and knowledgeable forum for social commentary. Spending hours articulating arguments that are usually found swimming aimlessly in the dangerous waters of political thought was necessary, constructive, and surprisingly enjoyable. I had a good time. I must admit that my views have changed on some things. On others, I find myself feeling even more enthusiastic to fight for than ever before. The exercise of publishing ideas really forces us to think about what we’re thinking—to think critically and honestly in an exceptional manner. This is a good thing and I thank everyone for participating, whether you posted every day or just read along.

By the way, I’m surprised by how much response I’ve seen over the past six months. Some readers visited for short periods, coming and going sporadically, and some stuck it out while commenting on just about every post (hats off to Chris, JB, Guille and the other regulars). I know that many of you, especially the Bozzolos, read regularly without posting, which has not gone unnoticed and unappreciated.

I hope to see some of you become bloggers some day. I’m going to leave Fantastiko up until the Blogger Gods take it down. If you get bored, take a trip back in time and skim over the 57 topics at your leisure. Alex's blog is alive and well, continuing to allow for personal reflection and lively debate. You will certainly see me there.

In the end, I can’t express enough how good this project made me feel. Despite its limited audience and complete lack of exposure outside of Google, a few links (thanks to Alex and MKD), and word-of-mouth (thanks to everyone for sharing the site with others), it made me feel empowered in a time when I usually find myself feeling somewhat vulnerable. I’m breaking into a new career in public policy these days. I sometimes find myself feeling a bit out of my element when I’m in public policy discussions, but this project helped me build confidence. I’m on my way to DC this summer and I have you all to thank for helping me get there.

But that’s not really the point. The point is we did what we meant to do. We managed to hold an interesting and valuable conversation. I think we showed ourselves that it can be done and that it’s worth doing.

Take care,

Nan

The President, the Pope, and Compassion

I bet you thought I had given up on this blog. Please accept my apologies. It’s been a busy season of interviews, finals, and vacations. I haven’t even done my taxes yet! Enough with the excuses. I sense that Fantastiko may be in its final days, but I’ll press on until its last breath.

I caught President Bush’s comments on the Pope’s passing and was struck with frustration when he said that the Pope shared his belief that “the strong should protect the week.” Bush calls this compassionate conservatism.

Like other liberals, I generally think of this label as an oxymoron and have waited to see how Republicans could possibly pull this off.

Still waiting…

It’s not compassionate to cut programs that provide immediate support to the poor, especially when there’s no immediate alternative for everyone. I believe Bush does care about people in poverty. But compassion —or at least my concept of the word—doesn’t suit his policies.

Compassion implies that we’re going out of our way to extend kindness and support to anyone who needs it. To some extent, the existence of executive agencies meant to provide direct social support (e.g. HHS) demonstrates our government’s compassionate nature. But the enforcement of policies by public agencies is reflected by the current president’s policy desires. Now that we’ve had Bush for four years, does compassion sound like Bush to you? Am I the only one who is sure that if he could get away with it he would dismantle much of the core of social service and health care programs?

It’s kind of old news, but check out this Washington Post article on the Bush budget proposal for 2006. You tell me. Where’s the compassion in his budget proposal?

Whether compassion or kindness should have a place in public policy is not my problem here; that’s another argument. It’s the presentation of his policies towards the poor that bothers me. Although he continues to tout this compassionate conservative personality, his policies have yet to show a proven positive effect on poverty. His policies, instead, depend on the long-term hope that improving economic environments will provide incentives for individuals to pull themselves up. In doing so, the poor of today will be sacrificed for the benefit of the poor of tomorrow—maybe. That’s tough love, not compassion.