Michael Gerson Is A Ninny

Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson clearly rejects the idea of partisanship producing the legislative victories that last the decades. In his view, Ronald Reagan was a strong and unifying leader because he transcended partisanship. That view is rubbish, of course: Reagan pursued a conservative course that led to the defeat of liberals. There was nothing about the process that transcended partisanship. Victor, meet vanquished; vanquished, victor.

Oh, yes, Gerson also states that 'America was ready' under Reagan. What the hell does that mean? America is always ready to meet the victor. America likes winners!

Similarly, Obama can't be a strong and unifying leader now because he is (finally, belatedly) following a liberal course that will lead to the defeat of conservatives.

Oh precious bipartisanship! Who is left to sing its praises? (Gerson, of course! But only that very special kind of bipartisanship that always results in Republican victories.)

Oh yes, and America is presumably 'not ready' now for health care reform. But hey, like I say, America is always ready to meet the victor. America likes winners!

That's how it has always worked, and that's how it will always work.

Michael Gerson, 'Concern Troll' from Hell:

Whatever the legislative fate of health reform -- now in the hands of a few besieged House Democrats -- the reformers have failed in their argument. Their proposal has divided Democrats while uniting Republicans, returned American politics to well-worn ideological ruts, employed legislative tactics that smack of corruption, squandered the president's public standing, lowered public regard for Congress to French revolutionary levels, sucked the oxygen from other agenda items, reengaged the abortion battle, produced freaks and prodigies of nature such as a Republican senator from Massachusetts, raised questions about the continued governability of America and caused the White House chief of staff to distance himself from the president's ambitions.

...Instead, the president chose the current complex, regulatory approach to reform, precisely because it seemed less radical and disruptive than the other options. It was patterned in part on health reforms in Massachusetts signed by then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, thereby applying at least a veneer of bipartisanship.

So what went wrong? Some analysts blame structural factors, particularly the growth in partisanship. It is true that the Republican caucus in Congress has become more homogeneous in its conservatism. But it is also true that Obama wants to seriously expand the role of government at a moment when skepticism of government is widespread. His health-reform plan may have seemed moderate on the congressional ideological spectrum. But the creation of a new middle-class entitlement can't be considered moderate in the context of the times when even previous entitlement commitments seem unsustainable. And it has not helped that the Massachusetts model of health reform has resulted in unchecked cost increases, requiring higher taxes and benefit cuts. These financial concerns not only unify Republicans of every ideological stripe, they reach into the right of the Democratic coalition.

...The final reason for Obama's failed argument on health reform is neither structural nor strategic. It is psychological. As the evidence mounted that the body politic was rejecting Obama's health-system transplant, Obama faced a choice about the nature of his presidency. He could retreat toward incrementalism or insist on transformation.

...Because Obama has chosen liberal transformation, the political outcomes are limited: He can appear radical in victory or weak in defeat. Given his health-reform decisions, it is no longer possible for Obama to be a president both strong and unifying.