That Wacky, Wacky Gerson Posted by Michael Cohen

You almost have to feel a little sorry for Mike Gerson. He's a true believer in George Bush, and all evidence be damned he's going to make Americans believe that the man is a true compassionate conservative.

In today's Washington Post Gerson argues that Bush IS truly a compassionate man. And here's part of the evidence:

Proposals such as No Child Left Behind, the AIDS and malaria initiatives, and the addition of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare would simply not have come from a traditional conservative politician. They became the agenda of a Republican administration precisely because of Bush's persistent, passionate advocacy. To put it bluntly, these would not have been the priorities of a Cheney administration.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have the winner of 2008's "Most Backhanded Compliment" award. Nothing else written this year will come close. Do you think maybe Gerson is reaching a bit when he needs to use Dick Cheney as a strawman to prove that George Bush is compassionate? Honestly, who doesn't look compassionate next to Dick Cheney? This is like boasting that you were runner-up in the 20th century's "Worst Fascist Dictator Contest."*

And can you even imagine the priorities of a Cheney Administration? It would probably start with strangling puppies and waterboarding kittens and then go from there.

But that isn't even in the biggest whopper in this piece as Gerson really goes on a limb  and argues "by any fair historical measure, Bush's achievements on social justice at least equal those of Bill Clinton." Really? I wonder if Bill Clinton ever vetoed a children's health bill. . . twice.

I understand that Mike Gerson wants to feel that his years in the White House were validated; and that the man he worked for really wasn't such a bad guy.

I wish him the best of luck with all that!

*(For the record, I am not comparing George Bush or Dick Cheney to a fascist dictator. It's a joke and one that I stole from Woody Allen).

Comments

[Zathras]

A couple of notable things about Gerson's column:

First, it is in its way a traditional Democratic column, in that it demands that new programs be judged on their intentions rather than on their performance (No Child Left Behind), or alternately that they be judged without reference to how (or whether) they are to be financed (Medicare D). This is pretty close to the traditional liberal Democratic definition of compassion: the emotion that justifies government giving money to one person or telling someone else how they must do their job for reasons that make one feel better about oneself.

Second, Gerson's is a very modern Democratic column. It isn't an appeal to Americans to support President Bush, but to feel sorry for him. Everyone is just so mean to him, saying he doesn't care, when he's done all these things that meet the compassion criterion noted above. It isn't hard to see a resemblance to Bill Clinton's "those people were so mean to me" complaints about his Congressional accusers or those his wife has made through him about how tough the press is on her compared to how they treat Sen. Obama.

I suppose it's a little like famous athletes who by virtue of being famous get comped on everything from restaurant dinners to courtside seats, things that they need less than almost anyone. Appeals for sympathy and pleas that one be judged by one's motives rather than one's performance get most people nowhere in life, or in politics. Only con men and badly brought up teenagers rely on them with any frequency. But right at the top of the political world, people use such appeals all the time -- not on behalf of people who have endured genuine suffering or hardship, but specifically on behalf of people who never have.

[Simmons]

I think George Bush is compassionate enough (see: Africa), he just hasn't ruled that well.

As to you mentioning SCHIP, I think that's a little different than you make it out to be. He was rejecting the bill for economic reasons, if I recall correctly.