Answering the question, “How will health-care reform play out for Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats?” in Sunday’s Washington Post, Ed Rogers who worked for Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush noted three kinds of democrats in Congress: the doomed, the defiant, and the delusional. It seems to me that the same three categories apply to the assorted schemes to control carbon output.

“For the doomed,” writes Rogers, “the calculation is easy: ‘If I vote for this turkey, I will lose reelection, but I get a plum executive branch post in return.’” President Obama wants a climate bill passed and, the thinking goes, he will reward those who fall on their swords to pass it.

The defiant on both health-care and the environment “have decided it is better politically to pass something unpopular and harmful to the economy than it would be to not pass something unpopular and harmful for the economy. They know that most of their constituents are against it and in many cases will be economically hurt by the bill, but they are going to vote for it anyway.”

Hidden just under the surface of this thinking is contempt for the people who elected them and who they are allegedly representing. Voters should see to it that they join the ranks of the doomed.

Finally there are the delusional. As they consider the issues, says Rogers, “they are probably the most at peace with themselves.”

Rogers notes, “Zombie-like, they believe they are doing something good. Many in this group are not burdened by knowing much about the facts of the issue, the specifics of the bill or how the details will affect real people and businesses.” Again, he is addressing health-care, but as this applies to the environment, I suspect they reason: Earth is good, clean air is good, and scientists and Al Gore (a Nobel laureate!) wouldn’t lie to me.

The doomed, the defiant, and the delusional—it’s a helpful schema for understanding Congress in the health-care debate, the environmental debate, and probably most other debates as well.