The Trouble With Gersonism, Again

It isn't necessarily the policy substance: Gerson may be right about PEPFAR and Tom Coburn completely wrong. It's the style of argument, which invariably casts opponents of any humanitarian program Gerson supports as un-Christian, uncharitable and inhumane - or as this particular op-ed puts it, "rigid, stingy and indifferent to human suffering." And it's the swift recourse, in a policy debate that seems to turn on a technical question - not whether we should fight AIDS in Africa but how the program should be designed - to low demagoguery like this:

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. These are the Republicans who have signed a hold letter, preventing action on the reauthorization of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).

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. Maintaining weight becomes difficult with vomiting and diarrhea, with tuberculosis and fungal infections, and with cancers such as Kaposi's sarcoma and lymphoma.

Even so, you'd think that a few million of these wasting bodies would weigh more on the moral balance than seven senators. But so far, you'd be wrong.

This is rhetoric better suited to Michael Moore than to a columnist who wants conservatives to take him seriously, rather than just tuning him out.

Comments

FWIW, people who I've talked to who work in Africa say that the abstinence-only stuff the Bush administration insists on attaching to these plans is killing people, too. So how much do Gerson, Bush, and Pat Robertson weigh?

Ross, you and Reihan are just about the only movement-ish conservatives who evince any indication that they care how policy actually impacts anything in the actual world.

Gerson's emotion-based style of argumentation is not a Gerson problem, it's a GOP and movement conservative problem.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 14, 2008 12:00 PM

Conservatives take deranged, corrupt shitbags like Vitter, Coburn, Bunning and Chambliss seriously. So why should anyone think the nitwits will respond to reasoned discourse?

Ridicule is what they have earned. Let's have more of it.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | May 14, 2008 12:45 PM

Yes, Republicans have never stooped so low as to call their opponents un-Christian before. Not until Gerson's damnable innovations.

Posted by Justin K. | May 14, 2008 12:59 PM

Liberals already ignore Michael Gerson. Join us, conservatives, and we shall marginalize him in a thoroughly bipartisan manner.

Posted by Cain | May 14, 2008 1:39 PM

Coburn has already fired back with a short column on RealClearPolitics:

Part of Gerson's moral outrage is focused on my controversial stance that AIDS treatment dollars be spent on treatment. 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.

Along with Senators Burr and Jon Kyl (R-AZ), I have introduced a bill that would maintain the U.S. commitment to providing treatment to millions living with HIV/AIDS while setting a goal of ending once and for all the twin tragedies of baby AIDS and AIDS orphans. Who then is the bigger supporter of PEPFAR - those of us who want to continue its success by keeping it intact or those who want to radically reverse everything that has made the program work, yet triple its funding?

Gerson's determination to critique not just our policy concerns but our morality suggests that he is viewing this debate as proxy battle in the broader struggle in the Republican Party between what he views as "seedy" or "anti-government" conservatism and the "compassionate" conservatism he helped shape in the White House. That's a broader debate that I welcome.

In the meantime, I'd welcome a thoughtful debate about PEPFAR. Unfortunately, all Gerson has shown is that demagoguery is the last refuge of a former administration official looking for a legacy.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/gersons_misplaced_pepfar_anger.html

Posted by Richard | May 14, 2008 2:57 PM

As a liberal with libertarian-leanings on some issues, it's hard to imagine a politics more yucky than the statist theo/neo-conservatism of Gerson. Yes, the demoniziation of his opponents (almost literal, in this case) is also cringe-making.

Really, all you need to know about the dude is that he wrote a book called "Heroic Conservatism." Isn't real conservatism about reducing the role of government in a way that allows individuals to strive heroically, not to create a State that purports to engage in "Heroic" actions!?

Posted by Madorsky | May 14, 2008 3:03 PM

Moe, you forgot to call them "repiglicans." That always cracks me up!

Posted by MohammedLuLuandGaia | May 14, 2008 4:38 PM

Elvis writes:

"FWIW, people who I've talked to who work in Africa say that the abstinence-only stuff the Bush administration insists on attaching to these plans is killing people, too. So how much do Gerson, Bush, and Pat Robertson weigh?"

Elvis, you and your friends might want to read this:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6172

Posted by torourke | May 14, 2008 4:44 PM

people who I've talked to who work in Africa say that the abstinence-only stuff the Bush administration insists on attaching to these plans is killing people, too.

Riiight. That not having sex bit causes people to swell up and explode, or something.

Posted by James | May 14, 2008 4:50 PM

Conservatives take deranged, corrupt shitbags like Vitter, Coburn, Bunning and Chambliss seriously. So why should anyone think the nitwits will respond to reasoned discourse?

"Reasoned discourse" such as your own fine example, for instance?

I'd think that a respectable outfit like The Atlantic would make sure that people such as yourself were never, never, ever, allowed to comment here.

Or at least clean up some of the smellier turds you deposit here on a regular basis.

Posted by James | May 14, 2008 4:54 PM

James says: "Reasoned discourse" such as your own fine example, for instance?

I'd think that a respectable outfit like The Atlantic would make sure that people such as yourself were never, never, ever, allowed to comment here.

Or at least clean up some of the smellier turds you deposit here on a regular basis."

As I tried to explain, Jimmy, reasoned discourse doesn't work on the deranged. Members of the Repiglican Party are certainly deranged - the evidence that they lack the ability to discern reality is abundant.

So until they get better - if that's even possible anymore - I'll treat them the way they treat their moral superiors - you know, people who don't think that torture and gay-bashing and pointless wars of aggression are okay.

If you're one of them that won't make any sense to you. In which case, sit in the corner and munch on those scats you so reasonably mentioned.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | May 14, 2008 7:45 PM

Just ignore him everybody, he isn't taking his medication again...

Posted by Philip Marlowe | May 14, 2008 11:16 PM

Thanks for the link, torourke. There are some good points in that article. In a perfect world, we'd tell everyone about abstinence until marriage, and everyone would go along with it.

But note that the First Things article does not attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of actually existing abstinence-only programs.

That is the critique of the Bush administration's policy.

It is therefore inaccurate to claim, as Green and Ruark do, that critics of these programs are concerned "with upholding a Western notion of sexual freedom."

We must be guided by what works best, not by a Western notion of sexual freedom, nor an American political notion of sexual abstention. The First Things article seems to establish that "condom promotion" is an ineffective strategy. But it does not establish that abstinence only is effective.

Studies show that abstinence only programs don't work. The Economist article is much more careful about citing its sources than is the First Things article.

The type of people whose views I described above are very much focused on the need to help people there, not by a desire to evangelize about the awesomeness of sexual freedom. The simple fact is that, as the article I linked put it, "Abstinence-only does not work. Abstinence-plus probably does."

James-- please be aware that not everyone told to not have sex thereafter refrains from having sex. The effectiveness of the effort to prevent AIDS, not the desirability of premarital sex, is the issue here.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 15, 2008 9:55 AM

Elvis,

I should have been more clear about what I was responding to, so here is a relevant paragraph:

"The report also erroneously claims that Protestant evangelicals are “among the staunchest supporters of the U.S. Government PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) earmark for ‘abstinence only’ prevention programs.” This is mistaken. There is no such “abstinence only” earmark within PEPFAR, nor are the great majority of Protestant groups who receive PEPFAR funds implementing abstinence-only programs. Current PEPFAR guidance recommends that two-thirds of funds for the prevention of sexual transmission of HIV be allocated to abstinence-until-marriage and faithfulness or partner-reduction programs. This amounts to less than 7 percent of PEPFAR funds. Among recipients of these funds, faith-based organizations such as World Vision, World Relief, and Samaritan’s Purse implement programs that emphasize abstinence and faithfulness but also include accurate information on condoms—in other words, a comprehensive ABC approach, the approach known to work best."

I think it's inaccurate to suggest that the Bush administration's AIDS program is simply abstinence only. The Economist article says that $1 billion of the $15 billion is reserved for programs that do not mention condoms, but that doesn't mean that it is abstinence only, as the fidelity component has been critical in reducing the AIDS rates in several countries, as Green and Ruark point out.

Furthermore, the Economist article only cited studies that involved Americans, which makes it difficult to draw any serious conclusions about what our policy should be for Africa, as there are so many variables to control for.

As it is, I think abstinence-only edcuation is a waste of time and money for U.S. students, but that's not what the Bush's administration's policy is for Africa. To suggest that it is, and to insinuate that this policy is "killing people" in Africa is both inaccurate and vicious.

Posted by torourke | May 15, 2008 3:25 PM

I don't agree with the abstinence only policy but to say that it is 'killing people in Africa' seems overblown.

I think it's pretty silly to demand that everyone in Africa, or in America for that matter, abstain from intercourse until marriage. But I think that to go to other extreme and refuse to condemn things like widespread prostitution and extramarital affairs in African countries (or for that matter the rampant promiscuity among some American subcultures like the San Francisco bath houses) is even a worse problem.

The fact is that many African people are sleeping with too many people and until something is done about that fact, progress cannot be made.

Posted by Hector | May 15, 2008 6:48 PM

torourke, thanks for reading the Economist article and for your response.

The Economist article says that $1 billion of the $15 billion is reserved for programs that do not mention condoms, but that doesn't mean that it is abstinence only, as the fidelity component has been critical

Agreed as to the "fidelity component"; I don't know whether that $1 billion is abstinence-only or not.

torourke and Hector, I shouldn't have said "killing people"-- I meant to be exaggerating Gerson's style of argumentation, but you both instead took it, reasonably, to be my charge against the Bush administration's policy. We all actually seem not to be too far apart-- abstinence-only is "silly," condom-only seems not to be effective. Thanks for engaging in discussion.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 15, 2008 8:31 PM

Elvis,

Yeah I agree that condoms should be a feature of effective anti-AIDS programs. I think that encouraging young people to abstain until adulthood is a good idea and I think that fidelity should be stressed heavily. I like the billboard slogan that I used to see in the African country where I was living....in translation it said roughly,
"Many Wives, Many Lovers, Many Diseases. Protect yourself against AIDS."

Posted by Hector | May 17, 2008 9:42 AM

Gerson is a punchline to a bad joke and for the most part unworthy of attention. The article in reference was his first decent article in months - usually he writes laughable partisan nonsense that sounds like the kind of tripe Rush Limbaugh might dream of in one his Oxycontin / Viagra-induced hazes. What I found shocking about the article is that he actually showed a bit of compassion, which was a first. That he makes his argument in a shallow and one-sided manner is to be expected - this is Bush's ex-speechwriter after all - a terrible one at that.

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | May 19, 2008 10:23 PM

Dear All,

In a perfect world everyone would be able to choose to remain sexually inactive. Unfortunately, many women and children are raped in war-torn nations. Even in times of peace women are raped by their husbands. Culturally, they cannot choose to abstain even when their husbands are known to have AIDS. BTW, for those Catholics out there, the Catholic Church does allow for the use of condoms in the case of rape. Rape is defined as non-consensual sex.

God bless our efforts to eradicate this problem in a humane manner.

---Beloved

Posted by Beloved | May 30, 2008 10:20 AM