The importance of hearing both sides

Here is a prime example.

Michael Gerson is the chief wordsmith of "compassionate conservatism" and how it was championed and ultimately implemented in the Bush White House, especially the first term. He now writes a weekly syndicated column for Newsweek, which is also carried on Townhall.com.

Gerson, in his May 14 column, took to task what he refers to as the "Coburn Seven" for failing to reauthorize the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The Coburn Seven, all Republicans, includes Senator Tom Coburn (OK), and fellow Senators Jeff Sessions (AL), Richard Burr (NC), Jim DeMint (SC), Saxby Chambliss (GA), David Vitter (LA) and Jim Bunning (KY).

An initial read of Gerson's column does indeed make it all seem ominous. I believe Christians should not only care about AIDS and the suffering it has caused (especially to many innocent victims in Africa), but should act to offset it if it is within our power. Visits to Africa have completely changed the ministry fundraising efforts of such evangelical leaders as Rick Warren and Bill Hybels' wife, Lynne. I am confident that similar convictions are what inspired Gerson's efforts here. I don't question his intentions.

I'll admit that I have HUGE respect for Tom Coburn. His book Breach of Trust is one of the best on the 1994 Republican Revolution and although it was written in 2003, it shows why the Republicans are in the quandary they are today. Coburn is a man of deep integrity and principle, so Gerson's protests didn't feel quite right.

As it turns out, what an illustration this debate provides us on how fundamentally unfair it is to only hear out one side of an argument.

Senator Tom Coburn replied with an op-ed, evidently dated the same day (so he must have gotten the article in advance and been given a chance to respond?) Here are the two money paragraphs:

The fact is each of the "Coburn Seven" regard PEPFAR as America's most significant foreign policy accomplishment since the Marshall Plan. Since the enactment of PEPFAR in 2003, AIDS treatment has been so successful that it has literally given new life to millions with HIV who were barely clinging to life, a phenomenon referred to as the 'Lazarus effect.' Each of us also is committed to working with the President and our colleagues to pass a reauthorization that will meet the original goals of PEPFAR.

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.

Read both Gerson's column and Coburn's response and weigh the arguments equally.