Compassionate Conservatism vs. Limited Government Conservatism

I must admit I was one of the original "compassionate conservatives."  All the way back in 1999 (what a party!) I was on the George W. Bush bandwagon.  I was in grad school at the time and I remember a buddy of mine and I salivating at the prospect of a Republican presidential candidate who had a philosophy the moved beyond simple-minded anti-government slogans and crude individualism.  Back in those days George Bush used to say "prosperity without purpose is simple materialism."  I believed that then, and still believe it to this day.  I still believe conservatives should have a more noble governing philosophy than "leave me alone."  For one thing, it is hard to make an argument for public morality on issues such as protecting human life and defending marriage when you think government's job is to physically protect us from each other and that's it. 

But here is Charles Kessler arguing that "compassionate conservatism" in practice means unlimited government. I am not sure he's correct, but I do thing it's something to chew on. Kessler argues:

Compassionate conservatism is the President’s self-proclaimed philosophy. This term proves the old admonition that the adjective is the enemy of the noun. Conservatism defends “liberty and justice for all,” meaning that there are limits to what government   can do to, and for, us. But a compassionate government cannot be a limited one. Its swelling sympathy will overwhelm the levees of individualism and consent (“I feel your pain,” whether you want me to or not); and its pity implies that for some unfortunate people, justice is not enough. This inherent indiscipline is why compassion used to be regarded as needing reason’s regulation, and why in any event it was thought better suited to private, not public, life. Compassionate conservatism, therefore, means big government conservatism. And big government conservatism is no conservatism at all.