"Heck Of A Job, Gersie"

That is, if I were to guess at the probable dinner conversation.

Michael Gerson's Open Hypocrisy

Let's take a look at some Gerson quotes from a Fox News interview by Megyn Kelly.

But the reality is that Wright is not a representative of the African-American community, he's an extremist. He's talked about AIDS being, you know, a plot by the American government to destroy people of color, you know, blamed America for 9/11. These things are not the mainstream of the African-American tradition. He's not a symbol of these things, he's an extremist.

Now let's take a look at some of the Republican ministers who, in Gerson's mind, are free to endorse and embrace Republican candidates - and who Republican candidates need not repudiate. On God punishing us for our sins:

• Pat Robertson: "I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those [gay pride] flags in God's face if I were you. This is not a message of hate - this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs. It'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor."
• John Hagee: "All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are - were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing."
• Jerry Falwell: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this [9/11] happen.'"
• John Hagee: "As a nation, America is under the curse of God."

On AIDS:

• Jerry Falwell: "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
• John Hagee: "AIDS began in African prisons, where thousands of men, deprived of normal sex, turned to perverted sex. From the infection created by this perverted sex came the infection that birthed AIDS."

On natural disasters and terrorist acts, the distinction between Wright and the extremists Gerson deems acceptable appears to be that it is unacceptable to suggest that government policy is sinful and might inspire vengeful response, but it is acceptable to argue that God will smite people en masse because some of their neighbors engage in acts the minister (and probably Gerson) regard as sinful.

And for AIDS, it's not acceptable to say that the U.S. Government created AIDS, but it is acceptable to say that it was created by God as a plague on homosexuals and those who tolerate them. To me, you know, the former position sounds silly and ill-informed, and the latter sounds like... blasphemy. And it is apparently acceptable to assert that AIDS arose out of "perverted sex" in "African prisons", so Gerson appears to have no problem with ministers taking positions that are scientifically ludicrous and arguably racist... against Africans.

Well, uh, I guess I would say that somebody who believes the United States government is guilty of genocide is not a fierce critic. He's a dangerous man.

A dangerous man....

• Pat Robertson (to Joel Mowbray): "I read your book. When you get through, you say, "If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer." I mean, you get through this, and you say, "We've got to blow that thing up."
• Pat Robertson: "Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."

So it's acceptable to speak of committing a terrorist act to blow up the State Department, or to suggest that the U.S. Government is engaged in a worse genocide than the Holocaust, but... I'm having trouble finding even a farcical point of distinction.

Um, and this is a, I think a genuine problem going forward. It undermines Obama's appeal to conservatives. It undermines his appeal to Jews because of this relationship with, of his Pastor's with Farrakan.

Ah yes, lest we forget the warm feelings emanating toward Jews from Gerson's acceptable extremists (and one who is considered not so extremist)....

• John Hagee: "No one could see the horror of the Holocaust coming, but the force and fear of Hitler's Nazis drove the Jewish people back to the only home God ever intended for the Jews to have - Israel."
• Jerry Falwell: "The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior."
• Billy Graham: " I go and I keep friends with [Abe] Rosenthal at the New York Times and people of that sort, you know. And all -- I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I'm friendly with Israel. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances."
• John Hagee: "How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for His chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings He had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.... it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people."

I know I'm supposed to buy into the notion that ministers who believe in the "End of Days", and support a vision whereby all of the world's Jews move to Israel where they ultimately either convert to Christianity or perish in the sea of fire, are somehow Jew-friendly. But....

And it really does undermine his basic message that words of healing matter. Because these are words of hatred that he has been, you know, associated with now.

In excusing every Republican affiliation with religious extremism, Gerson makes plain that he has no genuine problem with mere "words of hatred". His goal here is not to merely depict Wright's statements as "words of hatred", but as "words of hatred" from a "scary black man". Gerson knows that to achieve his goals, that last part is all that matters.

"It's Different When We Do It"

"Michael Gerson is not a man who is stupid - but he chose to walk with a man who is."

No, wait, I got that first part wrong.

The better analogy is this: What if a Republican presidential candidate spent years in the pew of a theonomist church - a fanatical fragment of Protestantism that teaches the modern political validity of ancient Hebrew law?

No, that wouldn't be it, because we know the church Obama attended. Perhaps Gerson has never heard of the United Church of Christ?

I realize why Gerson wants to distinguish this from McCain's embrace of Hagee (or Huckabee's attendance of Hagee's services), or the various other ways Republican candidates and Presidents have sucked up to offensive religious extremists. Why he wants to argue, "They were only making kissy-face with the leaders, not attending their services. They were lying about their religious convictions to get votes - and it's morally superior to lie about your belief in extreme religious doctrine than it is to attend a church where the minister sometimes says hateful things, even though you disagree with the minister." As with Gerson's defense of infidelity, we're entering the theater of the absurd.

When Gerson tries to argue that Republicans should be excused excused for lying about their religious beliefs in order to suck up to religious extremists, he also states,

Yes, but they didn't financially support his ministry and sit directly under his teaching for decades.

Can he truly believe that religious extremists embraced by Republican politicians do not profit from the association? That the open embrace of their theology and person doesn't augment their fame, their power, their authority, and ultimately their fortune? That Bob Jones University only wants Presidents and politicians to speak on its premises because it thinks it has the nicest auditorium in the country? That Hagee and similar religious leaders have no self-interest in injecting themselves into national politics?

How charmingly naive.

Bush Speechwriters United....

... Against Obama.

Michael Gerson attempts to attack Barack Obama's record on the Iraq war, but first a blatantly false assertion about McCain:

John McCain's nomination was ensured by the success of the surge he had consistently advocated, against intense opposition.

Daniel Larison responds:

This is ludicrous. McCain was the frontrunner in the spring of 2007, long before anyone could have reasonably claimed that the “surge” had done anything (not that many pundits didn’t make outlandish claims), and there was in any case never any doubt in the Republican rank-and-file that the “surge” was the right thing to do. On the contrary, if McCain’s nomination was ever assured it was assured by the collapse of his only real national rival, Mitt Romney, under the waves of the Huckaboom, whose beginning had literally nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

Gerson attempts to depict Obama as inconsistent on Iraq, lifting his analysis out of an essay by fellow Bush Speechwriter Peter Wehner. The phases appear to be:

1. The 2002 speech, opposing the Iraq war;
2. A post-war period, from 2003 to 2006, in which he argued that it would be irresponsible to withdraw, and that we had an obligation to try to stabilize Iraq;
3. Starting in late 2006, argument for phased withdrawal, and skepticism about "the surge";
4. An apparent present mindset that his Iraq policy as President will be shaped by the facts on the ground.

Gerson, of course, is all for the idea that Obama should base his opinions on the realities of the situation in Iraq, not campaign promises. But this obviously undercuts his suggestion of inconsistency between pre-war opposition to invasion, and post-war support for an effort to make the invasion and occupation work. Did Gerson somehow miss that the facts on the ground changed considerably between the time Obama opposed a theoretical war, and the time he was hoping to get the best outcome out of an actual war? Of course not. Gerson's attacks on Obama are consistently short on honesty.

Not only is there no inconsistency between points one and two, Obama remains correct to have opposed the war, and once Bush started the war he was correct to press for the best outcome. Had his position during the post-war period been a demand for immediate withdrawal at any cost, it would have been ridiculous. And this, of course, further highlights Gerson's mendacity - Gerson would be savaging that stance, as well. (The difference being, had Obama taken such a ridiculous position, Gerson could have presented an honest impeachment.)

So now the "inconsistency" is reduced to skepticism of "the surge", and the suggestion that the time has come for the Iraqi government to shoulder the burden of running the country. Or, if you believe that the Iraqi government will remain incapable of assuming actual governance and responsibility for security in the next twelve to thirty months, that the time has come for us to cut our losses. With all due respect to Gerson, if he truly believed that "the surge" was working he wouldn't be trying to disown the Bush Administration's benchmarks of its success, or exaggerating its successes.

It is a perfectly legitimate reaction to the present situation to observe that it is not apparent that Iraqi factions will even try to resolve their differences as long as the occupation remains in force, and to ask, "Why shouldn't we cut our losses?" The easy thing to do is what Gerson and his ilk have done from day one - prop up the official Bush Administration line that up is down, left is right, and the best way to overcome past failures is to keep on doing exactly the same thing.

Oh, you say, but "the surge" was something different. Even accepting that argument, that the failures of the prior years of strategy had become so patent that there were some real changes in our approach to the occupation on the ground, the surge has failed by the Bush Administration's benchmarks, and apparently also in the assessment of General Petaeus. And here's where the circle closes - the brilliant strategy of the man Gerson wants to push into the White House? "We'll keep doing exactly the same thing, whether for a hundred years or even a thousand years." That, Gerson would have us believe, is the better Iraq war policy.

I know I tease Gerson here, by suggesting that he is a world-class idiot, but there's another possibility. He's capitalizing on his position with the Washington Post to inject Republican smears into mainstream discourse. If they don't stick, those feeding him the lines he is to pitch can shrug and say, "It's only Gerson." And if the smears stick, more credible right-wingers can run with them.

Popularity

His editorial deserves greater ridicule, but I don't have time to keep up with all of Gerson's nonsense. Let's focus on this:

The real lesson in the years since Sept. 11 is different from what the Democratic candidates imagine: It is easy to be loved when you are a victim. It is harder to be popular when you act decisively to protect yourself and others.

Well, first of all we have a false dichotomy - our choices are either to "be a victim" or to "act decisively to protect yourself and others". Obviously, between the two, people are going to choose the flattering depiction - "Of course we want to be decisive! Of course we want to defend ourselves! Of course we defend others as well." Never mind that Gerson's "lesson" is not even close to reflecting reality. If Gerson were writing about the two World Wars and adhered to this style, he would elide the gratitude received by the nations the U.S. helped liberate, and would write something along the lines of, "Twice now, we have fought to free Europe, and both times Germany hated us for it."

If anybody has been playing the "victim" card since 9/11, it would be the Bush Administration. Being a "victim" is its excuse for everything, from secret detentions, to torture, to limiting habeas corpus, to warrantless spying, to entering into a massive war of choice despite the doubts and, in some cases, opposition of our allies. And the rift with the world did not start with a war in the defense of ourselves or others - it came by virtue of Bush's war of choice with Iraq. His decision that he was going to reinvent the region by war, whatever the doubts of our allies. What happened? He proved to be wrong in his professed rationale for the invasion and, despite an extremely competent invasion by the U.S. military, he proved to be beyond incompetent in the aftermath of the invasion.

Had Bush listened to "old Europe", he may well have learned within months that there were no "WMD's" in Iraq. But then, that was a pretext - he didn't want confirmation that Iraq had abandoned its weapons programs before the war, as it might have cost him the opportunity to start the war. Had he listened to "old Europe", or even to experienced voices within his own Administration, the military, or the State Department, he would have heard that successful occupation is difficult, requires a massive troop commitment, and that democratizing a nation and introducing market principles into a controlled economy is a touch more complicated than, say, growing a Chia Pet. Instead he sent in a band of incompetents like L. Paul Bremer to reinvent the nation, whatever the will of the people. And he decided to disband the Iraqi military, sending hundreds of thousands of armed, unemployed young men off to joblessness (i.e., to engage in street crime, join the "insurgency", or both.) What's not to love?

You can argue that once he got past his "The Pet Goat" moment, Bush started to act "decisively", sure. But decisive or not, you don't earn anybody's respect when every major decision you make is wrong. (I know that some people will choose to give him respect despite his incompetence, but let's not pretend that he earned it.) A half-competent President could have used his post-9/11 popularity boost, combined with the enormous "benefit of the doubt" initially afforded by the rest of the world, and could have embarked on a plan to eliminate Al Qaeda and to press for reforms in the Middle East. Bush had other plans.

Gerson follows his standard mendacious line that when the Democrats speak of improving our reputation in the world, it can only mean that we want to make this nation's enemies like us more. He is contemptuous of "old Europe" - "pacifists" (like the French in Chad?) who fought alongside us in the First Gulf War and Afghanistan.... er., I mean, who thought invading Iraq was a really bad idea. Gerson illustrates this idea by arguing that even when we're popular in other countries, they still may oppose our policies and pursue their own self-interest... well, duh. And even more idiotic, his notion that improving our international reputation will inevitably mean rolling over and giving our enemies everything they want. While this type of idiocy may be mistaken for brilliance during Bush Administration speechwriting sessions, it's unfortunate that Gerson's White House experience has apparently left him unable to write anything more than bad fiction.

An Imaginary Obama's Imaginary First 100 Days

It's Michael Gerson, so I can't tell up front if he is being mendacious or if he truly is "that stupid".

But John McCain could. As a thought experiment, consider the foreign policy achievements of Obama's first 100 days in office.

Redeeming his inaugural pledge to "pay any price, bear any burden, fly any distance to meet with our enemies," Obama's first major international meeting is with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. National security adviser Samantha Power does her best to talk tough on human rights in preparation for the meeting. But, as Henry Kissinger once said, "When talks become their own objective, they are at the mercy of the party most prepared to break them off." Having made Iranian talks "without precondition" his major foreign policy goal, Obama is left with little leverage to extract concessions, and little choice but to move forward.

And it goes on like that, but gets even sillier. In other words, we get an imbecilic caricature of a theoretical "first 100 days", that nobody with any sense or an honest bone in his body would propound. How typical of Gerson.

In Gerson's imaginary scenario, as there has been zero progress (none, nada, zilch) in the war between now and his Inauguration, Obama announces a phased withdrawal of forces.

But the next day, The Post reports stunned disbelief among the troops. A high-ranking officer observes, "The surest way to break the morale of the military is to undo its achievements and humiliate it on the verge of success."

Gerson, of course, imagines us "on the verge of success" in Iraq - he has no plan for us to get past the "verge" and actually achieve success, but he imagines that any change of course will take us away from the "verge" we've supposedly been on since 2003. It's a fundamentally dishonest argument presented by people, like Gerson, who have no idea what they are talking about, have no actual plan for success, and have no honest response to the question, "Why shouldn't we cut our losses." As is his wont, he ignores the many military leaders who have cautioned us that our continued deployment in Iraq is degrading the armed forces. Who cares about that or their ability to defend the nation, after all, if maintaining troop levels will help the Republican Party save face?

Gerson concludes,

Obama's 100-day agenda would be designed, in part, to improve America's global image. But there is something worse than being unpopular in the world - and that is being a pleading, panting joke.

Well, it's hard to argue with that. And who would know better than Gerson?

The Words Put Into Politician's Mouths

Michael Gerson tells us,

The construction of serious speeches forces candidates (or presidents) to grapple with their own beliefs, even when they don't write every word themselves. If those convictions cannot be marshaled in the orderly battalions of formal rhetoric, they are probably incoherent.

Michael Gerson? Speechwriter for G.W. Bush? Did it even occur to him that he's indicting his own work?

McCain can and should make an ideological case against his opponent. Why does Obama want to fight terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan but not in Iraq? How would it advance the war on terrorism to grant al-Qaeda's fondest wish - an untimely American retreat from the Middle East? Would Obama really devote his first year in office to a series of surrender summits with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, Venezuela and North Korea?

Here's the problem. If you caricature and misrepresent your opponent's beliefs, you don't come across as a "straight talker". McCain has already stumbled when trying to confront Obama on foreign policy, ridiculing Obama's statements about striking targets inside Pakistan even as the White House was adopting the very techniques Obama proposed.

Trying to caricature Obama as intending to meet with every world leader, no matter how despotic, during his first year in office? At the expense of every single other priority, domestic or international? Let's just say that if I were drafting Obama's response to such an accusation the overt message would be "he's confused", and the subtext would be "he's senile." Obama's team may be more charitable than I, but I would suggest that McCain take a look at G.W.'s past, frequent incoherence before adopting a response endorsed by one of Bush's principal speechwriters.

Why, Oh Why, Do Idiots Get National Syndicated Columns?

The Washington Post's resident "compassionate conservative" and proponent of good Evangelical Christian family values, Michael Gerson, today brings us a defense of infidelity.

Even if the accusation of infidelity were true, this kind of past relationship is hardly disqualifying for high office anymore, given a series of more prurient precedents.

Yeah, even if the Presidential candidate of the "family values" party has cheated on his wife, yawn, no biggie.

An affair between adults is a far cry from President Bill Clinton's exploitation of an intern, which involved not merely a failure of character but also an abuse of power.

Let's see... Monica Lewinski did not work for Bill Clinton, nor was he involved in supervising her. At the time their relationship started, Lewinski had accepted (but had not yet started) a staff position at the Office of Legislative Affairs. She was 22 years old and, if Gerson investigates, I'm sure he will be able to figure out that a 22-year-old is an adult. Lewinski has never claimed to have been "exploited" or even misled by Clinton.

Don't mistake this as a defense of Clinton. His judgment in this context was atrocious, both in having the relationship and in lying about it. But it is repulsive that people like Gerson (self-professed Christians and otherwise) are still lining their pockets by lying about the affair, or (giving him the benefit of the doubt, as such) that our nation's leading newspapers give immense compensation to columnists who are that stupid and ill-informed.

Am I attributing to stupidity what might better be explained by misogyny? Why the eagerness to infantilize a 22-year-old woman? Have any of the men who get all weepy about how Lewinsky was "exploited" ever engaged in similar infantilization of a 22-year-old male?

Compare and contrast:

Gov. George W. Bush - whom I worked for at the time - was forced to admit a youthful DUI conviction, which reinforced a public image of frat-boy recklessness. The Bush campaign questioned the timing and source of the revelation - both of which were questionable - but police reports are usually accurate.

You have G.W., admitting to a conviction of drunk driving, yet Gerson is still trying to imply that it may not have actually happened and is giving G.W. the "wink wink, nudge nudge, you know how frat boys are" treatment. Incredible.

Is This The Beginning Of A New Beginning For McCain?

Today, Michael Gerson lavishes attention on John McCain, and repeats his standard prevarication about "the surge", followed by a "there are two types of people" generalization that would probably even make David Brooks blush.

President Bush's announcement of the surge in January 2007 pleased almost no one - neither Democrats who embraced retreat at any cost, nor Republicans who suspected the shift in approach was too little, too late.

Is Gerson truly a simpleton, or does he merely play one on the editorial pages? Seriously - people complain about The Times hiring Kristol, who is unquestionably a hack, but at least he has a brain in his head.

Gerson tries to reinvent McCain's revival as being about this new "success" in the Iraq war:

Yet the Republican candidate most closely identified with the war and the surge performs well in head-to-head polls against the Democrats. The revival of McCain's campaign was possible for one reason: the revival of American fortunes in Iraq.

Which explains why Republican voters put the Iraq war first... second... er, make that a close third (19%) on their list of priorities. Behind the economy (39%), something McCain admits that he doesn't understand, and immigration (23%).... Gerson may have sympathies with McCain's views on immigration, but (as obtuse as he often seems to be) he knows better than to make immigration policy the centerpiece of a column on the revival of McCain's candidacy.

Most categories of violence in Iraq are now down by more than 60 percent, and sectarian attacks in Baghdad have fallen by 90 percent. Sunni tribal leaders are conducting the first large-scale revolt of Arabs against al-Qaeda thuggery - which includes, we learned last week, strapping explosives to a mentally disabled woman and setting off a blast in a market.

McCain seems well suited to deal with this kind of evil - precisely because he would diagnose it as evil.

Whereas the other candidates would diagnose it as... oh, what's the word I'm struggling to find... evil?

In case it is necessary to restate my position, the military achievements in Iraq have been impressive. From the total domination of the country in the early days of the war, through the surge and its military goals of suppressing violence to make room for political progress. On the other hand, the Iraq war has been a political disaster, from the Bush Administration machinations that got us into the war, to the incompetent decisions made following the occupation (including extreme de-Baathification and the dissolution of the Iraq military, which laid the foundation for two of the most intractable problems, bringing Baathists into a unification government and a large, widespread insurgency.) Lest we forget, although the occupation was not the "cakewalk" we were promised, there was a two-year downward spiral following the invasion. Two years of squandered opportunity, due primarily to the Bush Administration's refusal to face reality and lust to unilaterally impose its own goals on the state of Iraq. Where was Gerson during that period abject incompetence? Oh, yeah....

In the general election, his ideological heresies will suddenly transform into strengths. Because of his immigration views, he is the only Republican candidate who can make a serious appeal to Hispanic voters. His positions on global warming and campaign finance reform will ease his outreach to independents.

If Gerson were paying attention to the voices of voters instead of the voices in his head, he would realize that McCain's present success arises from his "outreach to independents". The closer to the center you are, the more likely you are to support McCain. The hardcore Republicans, those who put immigration as an issue above the Iraq war? They're not likely to be thrilled with McCain's reach toward the center. Gerson might dismiss this with a, "Who else are they going to vote for?" That, however, is an attitude likely to lead to reduced voter turnout.

Gerson sees one, and only one, flaw in McCain. His attempt to reinvent himself as a supporter of Bush, leading to the infamous "hug" picture that is sure to feature prominently in Presidential campaign ads? Not a problem. His flip-flopping on the religious right, and attempt to mend fences with the likes of Pat Robertson? Not a problem. His legendary temper? Not a problem. His off-the-cuff comments, such as the idea of a 100+ year Iraq war? Gerson probably views them as an attribute.

No, to Gerson, McCain's one big problem is that he doesn't care about domestic issues.

McCain's foresight on Iraq has carried him far. But eventually he will need to engage Democrats on issues from health care to education to poverty. And being right on the war will not be enough.

Health care? Doesn't Gerson read his own paper? (Seriously, though, that was a weak analysis.) Can McCain argue persuasively on issues he doesn't care about? I don't recall that he has ever really tried, suggesting that he is either sticking to issues he cares about or is ultimately forgettable when he speaks about anything else.

Here's McCain filling up a couple of minutes with his views on education policy. Here he is promising to continue GW's economic policies.) When McCain is memorable, it's usually when he betrays his lack of understanding of the economy - that is, when he says things like "I wish interest rates were zero" and "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

And let's not forget, Gerson is assuming McCain is "right on the war". The majority of Americans want a strategy that gets us out of Iraq. McCain doesn't have one. The majority of Americans want a strategy that brings our troops home. McCain's willing to commit them to Iraq for 100 years or more. The military success of the surge doesn't overcome the reality that the public wants the war to end, nor does it substitute for political progress. As previously noted, by the President's own standards the surge is a total political failure.

For a better summary of the more probable dynamics being McCain's resurgence, see Daniel Larison's comments at Eunomia.

Finding Success in Failure, III

As if his mendacity on the Iraq War and education policy weren't enough, Gerson shares this gem:

Democratic candidates attack the Bush tax cuts as a fiscal disaster -- just as a growing economy has boosted tax revenue to its highest level in history, halving the federal deficit in three years.

Wow... here I was thinking the tax cuts were put into effect back in 2001-2003, quickly turning a sizable budget surplus into a massive deficit, yet as it turns out they didn't go into effect until 2005! Thank you so much for clearing that up, Michael....

(How long is the boost in tax revenues from corporate profits likely to last?)

So here we are, with a surplus transformed into a deficit, no end to deficit spending in sight, no Republican plan to balance the budget or spend responsibly, and growth of tax revenues far below what the Bush Administration promised, trillions in new federal debt... and a one-year upward bump in corporate profits is deemed to prove that the tax cuts should never be touched - or perhaps that we should completely eliminate taxes and run the government on pure deficit spending.

Finding Success in Failure, II

Having shared his insights on Iraq, Gerson also shares his equally valuable insights into education policy.

Attacking No Child Left Behind is a reliable campaign applause line -- Hillary Clinton promises to "end" the law, because it is "just not working." Actually, the imposition of educational standards and testing has improved math and reading scores and begun narrowing the gap between disadvantaged and affluent students.

There is an angry backlash against NCLB among some Democratic interest groups. Suburban districts resent being labeled as failures just because some minority and disabled children aren't making progress. But that is the whole purpose of the law -- to prevent districts from hiding the poor performance of minorities behind the success of other students. Such districts should feel less resentment and more shame.

If he were to inform himself of the facts, Gerson might learn that the problem is not that the "failing" schools aren't outperforming other "successful" schools, or that they didn't have far better performance by students from minority groups or with disabilities, he would find that they were "failing" due to the fact that they were not showing sufficient "improvement" over prior years. Under the silly NCLB rating system, the best school in the state can be deemed "failing" while the worst can be deemed to be "succeeding". Also, where much of the "success" in lesser schools derives from "teaching to the test", there is a legitimate question as to whether education has actually improved along with the test scores.

Teachers unions object to standardized tests, preferring more subjective, nonacademic measures of school success. And that, from one perspective, is understandable. Failing corporations do not like accurate financial disclosures. Slow runners resent those pesky stopwatches. The unions want underperforming schools and ineffective teachers to be shielded from objective scrutiny. But testing is the only way to determine when disadvantaged students are being betrayed -- and by whom.

It would be more correct to say that teachers oppose standardized testing (not all of it, but the excessive focus created by NCLB), and that the unions are reflecting the positions of their members. This has nothing to do with teachers fearing that standardized tests will demonstrate them to be poor teachers, and Gerson should know that - part of Gerson's complaint appears to be that these tests do not affect job security. And as previously noted, if Gerson knew anything about school ratings under NCLB he wouldn't be describing the school ratings it promulgates as "accurate". Whatever accuracy might be derived from raw scores, it is lost in the system of rewarding individual school "improvement" even if it means classifying the worst schools as succeeding and the best as in need of improvement. It is noteworthy that in his attack on teacher's unions, as with everything else in his column, he omits any facts to support his slur. How worthy of a Bush Administration alumnus.

Instead of attacking a successful education reform, it would be helpful to hear some practical ideas for improving teacher quality. In the real world of failing schools, the main problem is not too much accountability; it is too few effective instructors. Why should teacher pay be determined by collective bargaining instead of teacher competence, especially in low-income schools that need to reward and retain good teachers? Why not give districts more flexibility to fire teachers who would serve children better by changing professions?

And again we have Gerson demonstrating his abject ignorance. He should pick up a phone and talk to some good teachers in the public school system, and get a sense for how NCLB has demoralized the profession, discourages good teachers from entering the profession, and has a lot of good teachers considering early retirement. Gerson's silly notion that teachers will line up to teach in failing schools because they may get a raise or bonus pay if they don't "fail" by... whatever measure he wishes to impose, be it a standardized test or the subjective assessment of a school administrator... and have no job security whatsoever? What planet is he on, where there's an abundant supply of teachers, and the only constraint against firing bad teachers and replacing them with good ones is the teachers' unions? What's he smoking?

People like Gerson also embrace a fanciful notion that no matter what else is wrong in a child's life, and no matter what educational or language deficits the child experiences, any "good" teacher can find enough time in the day to bring that child up to grade level (along with the thirty or so other kids in the class), and the only person who should face consequence for a child's lower-than-grade-level achievement is the teacher. If we assume that a teacher has six hours of classroom time per day for thirty students, and manages to pour all of that time into one-on-one mentoring... that's a whopping twelve minutes per student. Add, you know, teaching to the mix, and....

Well, Gerson likes to talk up his Christianity, so maybe he believes in educational miracles.

Finding Success In Failure

Michael Gerson, the feeling man's Republican, shares a few gems:

But Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy has succeeded with disorienting speed. Its combination of vision and competence will fill chapters in military textbooks.

In spite of these gains, Democratic presidential candidates still insist on reckless timetables for withdrawal -- the surest way to rescue defeat from the jaws of victory. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- who declared that the surge had "failed" even before it was fully implemented -- now contends that "the surge hasn't accomplished its goals."

If Mr. Gerson would acquaint himself with the facts, even slightly, he would be aware that Harry Reid's statements are true. The surge has been a success militarily, but it has not accomplished its goals. To quote, you know, the President:

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

By what measure beyond the military - something the President told us up-front was an inadequate measure - is the Surge a success?

Ethnic cleansing preceded the surge (not as part of U.S. policy, but as a consequence of ethnic warring), and part of the surge plan has involved erecting huge concrete barriers between ethnic factions so as to minimize conflict. That has helped bring about a reduction in a reduction of ethnic violence and reduced casualties, both civilian and military. What lesson should we draw from other nations, as to what is likely to happen if the authoritative hand is removed and the ethnic groups are freed to renew their conflict? (The Yugoslav "ethnic civil war" model; The Chechnya/Slovakia "split the country" model... is there another?) Even with significant federal reconciliation, it will take a great deal of effort by the Iraqi government to keep ethnic tensions under control, and I have some doubt as to their ability to do it within the... indefinite future. So does John McCain - who is prepared to commit our forces to Iraq for a century or more.

Meanwhile, we are at the crossroads between "surge" and "escalation." Gerson is ready to engrave our military success in Iraq into the history books. Yet members of the military in Iraq see it as taking six years or longer to achieve our goals. And unfortunately, no matter what our military does, it contributes nothing to the willingness of Iraq's various factions to form some form of unity government. It may in some senses encourage certain groups to be intransigent, knowing that we remain present to keep a lid on things while they hold out for more. Meanwhile, we have a growing question of what it will take to hold our military together for that six years (or for McCain's century) while we wait for the promised political progress that never seems to come.

I think the question that Gerson should be addressing is whether the U.S. and Iraq will be better served by a Bush-style "Let's see what happens in the next (and the next, and the next) six months" approach, a McCain-style "Don't worry about progress, as we'll hold your hand for as long as it takes" approach, or a Democratic-style, "You had better shape up, or you're going to have to do this without us" approach. Which approach would he deem more "conservative", if not more "compassionate"?

Gerson on Eugenics

Michael Gerson's column today espouses tolerance and inclusion as an outgrowth of faith:

The portion of "The Deathly Hallows" in which young Harry realizes that he is "marked for slaughter" and accepts the necessity of his own death for the sake of love is moving -- and that love becomes a kind of magic that is stronger than death itself. For every reader, this is an affirmation of friendship, loyalty and courage. For my children, it is also the symbol of a greater sacrifice.

These, of course, are central themes of religion, particularly Christian religion. And the question naturally arises: How can a book series about tolerance also be a book series about religion? This represents a misunderstanding of both tolerance and faith. For many, tolerance does not result from the absence of moral convictions but from a positive religious teaching about human dignity. Many believe -- not in spite of their faith but because of it -- that half-bloods, werewolves and others should be treated with kindness and fairness. Above all, believers are called to love, even at the highest cost.

This makes all the more puzzling his Wednesday column on eugenics. After summarizing various eccentric viewpoints endorsed by James Watson, Gerson writes,

Watson is not typical of the scientific community when it comes to his extreme social application of genetics. But this controversy illustrates a temptation within science - and a tension between some scientific views and liberalism.

One might start out by reminding Gerson that Watson's non-scientific beliefs don't imply any tension between science and liberalism, as they are not premised upon either. But what Gerson's appears to be trying to do is to imply that abortion rights translate into a form of eugenics, an increasingly popular semantic game of the political right.

The overwhelming majority of abortions occur with no genetic testing, and even where genetic testing occurs abortion remains an individual choice. Selectivity in your partner is much more likely to affect the future genome than is abortion - is it "eugenics" for somebody with a hereditable disease to choose not to procreate, or for somebody else to reject such a person as a partner? And if we are concerned about "designer children" or even gender selection, the technologies behind such concerns are applied before implantation, or even before fertilization. Gerson makes the odd statement,

Watson is correct that "we already accept" genetic screening and selective breeding when it comes to disabled children.

Are the two equivalent? And if so, what does Gerson propose as a solution to, well, people choosing their sexual partners at the expense of the disabled (or unattractive, or uneducated, or unaccompished...)? Sorry, Michael, but selectivity in dating has occurred since the dawn of time and while, yes, those icky liberal types will probably continue to advocate "marrying for love", at least in this country most conservatives are likely to resist any alternative you propose.

The left in America positions itself as both the defender of egalitarianism and of unrestricted science.... But what happens when certain scientific views lead to an erosion of the ideal of equality?

The logic of that.... "The left in America positions itself as anti-war and supportive of unrestricted science, but what happens when the scientist develop weapons technology?" "The left in America positions itself as pro-environment and supportive of unrestricted science.... But what happens if scientific discoveries are polluting in nature?" Perhaps notions of "ethics" and "common sense" are lost on Gerson, but my guess is that "the left in America" will apply them to such minor conundrums and not suddenly become tied in knots.

The counterpoint to this is also interesting. Is it a virtue of the left that it supports egalitarianism? Gerson appears to believe so, given his endorsement of the all-inclusive tolerance, kindness and affection ("Love thy werewolf as yourself") that he ascribes to faith. Is he asserting that the political right does not support egalitarianism? If we assume, as Gerson seems to believe, that acceptance of "human equality" is a virtue, is he trying to argue that both "the left" and "the right" support egalitarianism, but that "the right" somehow avoids the tension between egalitarianism and "unrestricted science" by restricting science? Is that a virtue?

In Gerson's mind, does the political right endorse only a restricted, hamstrung version of science? If so, in Gerson's mind, how crippled should right-wing science be? Anything goes, as long as it doesn't conflict with the literal text of the Bible? Or is this simply code for opposing stem cell research (or Bush's vacuous half-measures on that subject). If Gerson is satisfied with the manner in which President Bush has reconciled egalitarianism and science, I don't think he has any room to criticize the political left.