Encapsulation as Analysis

SEE HERE I'm not so sure that people like Michael Gerson here have anything at all right. One problem with politics that I see all the time is the convenience of Bulverism. Bulverism, in case you don't know, is a rhetorical tactic named by C.S. Lewis, it's basically a form of ad hominem except that it sounds analytical. You associate a view with your opponent. It doesn't matter if the opponent actually holds the view, although it helps if he or she does, or at least can be plausibly associated with the view. The more negative the view the better. Even better if you can associate a sort of slang name to the view: "birther", "tea-bagger", "Randian", "Bircher", ... whatever works. Then you dismiss the person so labeled as if your act of labeling them is the highest form of analysis.

I think Michael Gerson is performing an analysis that is sort of a sly form of this. You might call it the almost-Bulverism, i.e. dismissal of those that are not, but might easily be associated with the target negative group. This is a form of the Demon-Crat dismissal practiced on the Left only it also gets practiced on the Right. The Right is just not as good at it. But that's because as Joseph Sobran suggests, the Republicans are the "stupid party." They're not even good at demonizing.

It would be nice if we could get back to the place where arguments were actually about substance and not merely dressed up name-calling.