31st October 2007
Read it. Apparently, his complaint is that the administration isn’t full of socialists like him.
For Michael Gerson, the pattern became discouragingly familiar. A proposal to help the poor or sick would be presented at a White House meeting, but Vice President Cheney‘s office or the budget team or some other skeptical officials would shoot it down. Too expensive. Wrong priority.
I’m confused. I’d be happy to send him a dictionary in case he’s ignorant about what “conservatism” means.
UPDATE: Apparently Mark Krikorian at NRO has the same question.
I’m a relatively big-tent kind of guy, but Gerson’s not even within sight of the tent. He seems to be a morally serious man who has useful things to say, and we need more people like him — but we’ll need them in the coming Rodham Administration, not masquerading as a Republican.
UPDATE: And Jonah chimes in with his own view.
As with Crunchy Conservatism, I remain pretty exasperated with the straw man claim that the conservative movement and Republican party are overrun with anarcho-capitalists.
And, indeed, the anarcho-capitalists would be the first to agree.
UPDATE: And John O’Sullivan puts the boot in.