COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM BUSH'S ALBATROSS.

Byline: Scott Holleran Local View

There's no shortage of advice for the governor of Texas, from congressional Republicans to conservative columnists and pundits, the consensus is clear: Bush is in trouble.

The reason is not his party's or his campaign's advertising, it is not Bush's nasty characterization of a reporter and it is not Bush's attempt to control the boring battle of sound bites masqueraded as a debate every four years. The cause of Bush's decline is the idea widely credited for his rise: compassionate conservatism.

When the nebulous notion was perceived as a harmless assurance that Bush would not tear down the welfare state, he ascended. But when the idea is applied to real policies, few fundamental differences between Bush and Vice President Al Gore remain, making Bush look like a Me-Too candidate.

Both candidates embrace environmentalism, an expanded role for religion in government and an increased government intervention in the economy. Bush promises to leave no child behind and calls himself an environmentalist.

But Gore, who seeks establishment of government-run preschools and prescription drug subsidies for seniors on a scale unseen since Hillary Clinton's health care plan, is the more consistent advocate of big government.

That is Bush's problem. Given a choice between Do Good Gore and Do-Less-Good Bush, and lacking a serious contrast of ideas, Americans are leaning toward Gore. By heralding compassionate conservatism as the central concept of his candidacy, Bush permits Gore to engage him in a contest of compassionate statism.

It's a contest Bush is likely to lose.

Compassionate conservatism is a losing message because it's a fraud and the American people know it. Bush, who pledged to institute compassion in government, is forced to mimic the vice president's agenda. If he's really compassionate, he will leave no child behind, a euphemism for Hillary Clinton's collectivist claim that it takes a village to raise a child.

If he's really conservative, Bush will, at the very least, stop the growth of government. Compassionate conservatism, promising both, delivers neither.

The idea is Bush's albatross because it implies that practicing compassion is the proper role of the state. On the contrary, the proper role of government is to protect individual rights - which means the right to decide whether to practice - and what constitutes - compassion. The contradiction leaves Bush mired in his own philosophical conflict.

Bush's conservative agenda is potentially far more appealing to voters than Me-Too-ism. Though virtually concealed, Bush's proposal to legalize medical savings accounts (MSAs) is the perfect counterpoint to Gore's perceived populism. Medical savings accounts - like 401(k)s for health care - offer an alternative to HMOs and PPOs and are widely supported by insurers, physicians, patient advocacy organizations - even some Democrats. MSAs could revolutionize America's health care system.

Armed with health care reform that protects the right to free choice in medicine for everyone, Bush could properly point out that Gore's healthcare plan is a major step toward socialized medicine. Such a strategy would mean choosing economic conservatism over government-imposed compassion.

If Americans prefer compassionate statism over conservative economics, Bush will lose - but he will have preserved the principles of his struggling party and he will have offered voters a clear choice.

As Bush himself suggested on the sunny day when he stood in Iowa, captivated the country and announced his candidacy with confidence, he should summon his better nature, end the compassion match against Gore and fully embrace the principle upon which America was founded: individual rights.