Conservative Movement

Michael Gerson — a righteous embarrassment

By J. Wesley ⋅ May 16, 2008 ⋅  Email This Post ⋅  Print This Post ⋅ Post a comment

There is a breed of conservative which thrives only in the media. One might call them the in-house conservatives of the MSM. William Safire and David Brooks are two classic examples of the breed. Michael Gerson began as a high-profile “compassionate conservative,” and has transitioned to “in-house conservatism.” The more he writes, however, the more I think he’ll decline into outright Andy Sullivanism.

Gerson, a former speechwriter for George Bush ‘43, was built up by the media and his own self-promotion into one of the most famous Evangelicals in America. We were assured by the press (and Gerson), that he was the “conscience of the White House.” After leaving the Bush administration, he took up a columnist gig at the Washington Post. Since then, his life-cycle resembles ever more that of Andrew Sullivan — 1. begin with a conservative following, 2. write in an increasingly shrill and anti-conservative manner, and 3. continue to claim the conservative mantle and wonder why your following is now entirely liberal.

According to Gerson himself, he’d be a “Bob Casey Democrat” if not for the abortion issue. Jimmy Carter was his childhood hero, and still seems to be. Gerson advocates big-government conservatism (an oxymoron in the U.S. context) and compares illegal immigration opponents to 1800’s-style Nativist bigots.

Michael Gerson’s May 14th column is a typical, ugly example of his self-righteousness and continuing disregard for the truth. A group of seven Republican senators is opposing the renewal of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Gerson reports their opposition in manipulative, demagogic language:

“How much do seven members of the U.S. Senate weigh? Eyeing them — Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, Saxby Chambliss, David Vitter, Jim Bunning, Richard Burr — I’d guess they probably come in at about 1,300 pounds.

Now, how much do 3 million HIV/AIDS-infected people — the treatment goal of a reauthorized PEPFAR — weigh? This is a more difficult calculation. Adults with advanced forms of the disease can weigh about 60 pounds. Children with AIDS are like a shadow falling on a scale.”

The “Coburn 7,” as he terms them, are opposed to the bill because it removes requirements that 55% of funding be spent on treatment. Check out his expert analysis of the Coburn 7:

“For all of conservatism’s evident virtues, it can have one furtive, seedy vice: A justified suspicion of government can degenerate into an anti-government ideology — rigid, stingy and indifferent to human suffering.”

When I initially read Gerson’s article, I thought it was a bit overblown, but I took it at face value. Then I read Coburn’s response. It is certainly worth reading in full. There are words to describe someone like Michael Gerson, but none suitable for a family-friendly blog.

Gerson pointedly smeared Senator Coburn and the others as uncaring Pro-Life hypocrites unconcerned with AIDS prevention and stingily allowing African children to die. Gerson claims Coburn has a “generalized hostility to AIDS prevention.” Missing from Gerson’s diatribe were a few mitigating facts about Coburn:

- Coburn is a medical doctor who’s treated many AIDS patients.

- Coburn wrote and passed the first Baby AIDS law designed to prevent the transmission of HIV from mothers to babies.

- Coburn led the reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act.

- Coburn facilitated ties between the Family Research Council and ACT-UP in the name of AIDS prevention.

- Coburn served on President Bush’s Advistory Council on HIV/AIDS, where he was an advocate for PEPFAR.

As Coburn writes, “Yet, the fact is each of the ‘Coburn Seven’ regard PEPFAR as America’s most significant foreign policy accomplishment since the Marshall Plan.”

Senator Coburn goes on to say:

“I want to preserve PEPFAR’s original formula that sends at least 55 percent of all dollars to AIDS treatment so widows and orphans and actual patients, not program officers and consultants, will be the primary beneficiaries of the program. This formula is made all the more important because the new authorization calls for a three-fold increase in funding from $15 billion over five years to $50 billion over five years. Moreover, this smart and well-designed policy, which Gerson once supported but now scorns, is a major reason why PEPFAR has been a Marshall Plan-like response, rather than a Katrina-like response, to the AIDS crisis in Africa.”

Either Gerson neglected to interview the target of his hit piece, or he’s a liar. Given his history, I imagine it’s the latter.

More Michael Gerson - Tom Coburn blogging:
Weekly Standard / A Chicago Blog / Madison Project / Robert Stacy McCain