Sullivan’s Troubles: Are you as sick of Andrew as we are?

American Spectator ^ | 02/11/04 | Jay Currie

[Pokey78]

The very, very busy Andrew Sullivan (über blogger, gay Time Tory, etc.) is in a funk about President Bush. He thinks the president "is in the Rove-Cheney cocoon right now," which is keeping Bush from recognizing the obvious: His coalition is falling apart.

According to Sullivan's analysis, the president's de facto amnesty proposal has misfired, costing more Anglo votes than it nets in Latino support; the drunken Democrat routine on spending has aroused "[deep] concern" among independents (e.g., Perot voters); and Iraq could still go pear shaped. More Debatable: "prescription drugs pandering hasn't swayed any seniors"; religious conservatives may convince Bush to back a marriage amendment, which would "lose him the center." And the predictable denouement: "I'm not sure [Bush] even knows he's in trouble."

Sullivan's deft pen manages to imply in so many words that the President doesn't really know what his political operatives are up to. In other words, never mind those long explanations about how the prez is a stand-up guy with his eyes on the ball: Bush really is dumb after all.


AND DUMB IN a way that sets certain teeth on edge. In Time, Sullivan attacked the "Big Government moralism" of this year's State of the Union Address, mocking Bush's belief that public funds should be made available for character education. "The nanny state, much loved by Democrats," he smirked, "is thriving under Republicans."

Touché. Now, granted, Sullivan's reported conservatism is Oakshott through with social libertarianism, but it isn't as if Bush's traditionalism is a new development. He campaigned on several social conservative positions (banning partial birth abortion, funding faith-based initiatives, setting a "different tone") in 2000 and it is quite clear that he proposes to campaign on them again.

What's more, Sullivan recently acknowledged as much. Bush, "has been opposed to same-sex marriage since before he was elected," Sullivan wrote. And this very independent pundit supported the prez "while fully acknowledging he was worse on gay matters than Al Gore," because he believed the Texas governor would be better for the country in toto.

But lately, in addition to grousing about the president's awareness, Sullivan has been warning that he might split. If Bush proposes a straights only marriage amendment to the Constitution, obviously, that tears it. More broadly, he recently relayed and made sympathetic-sounding noises about excerpts of an interview of fellow traveler Christopher Hitchens, in which "Hitch" admitted that he is no longer "dogmatically for the reelection of the President." Should the Dems put forward a ticket that is serious on national security issues, he suggested, it's sayonara Bush san.

Nods to fiscal responsibility notwithstanding, it's hard to see why Sullivan would jump from the president's coalition now. He knew the social conservative pill he was swallowing when he endorsed Bush in the last go-round. Also, Bush's free-spending ways should have been evident from his campaign promises. Why threaten to jump now?


AT A GUESS, Sullivan has been finding it difficult to lead his sushi/latte, blue-state lifestyle, replete with liberal friends, old Harvard chums and lazy summer days in P-town without, once in a while, saying what he really feels about Bush. In that company, it is pretty hard to ignore the absence of any sort of fiscal plan or exit strategy for Iraq.

Also: Sullivan has too subtle a mind to miss the inconsistencies between his personal positions and the positions the President has maintained to entice his straight, Evangelical Christian, red state core supporters to get out the vote. This creates a dilemma: Sullivan wants the Republicans to win in 2004, but he also wants the party to ditch social conservatives and fundamentalists whose politics he despises.

So Sullivan, along with many conservative bloggers and mainstream commentators, is hedging his bets. He is also calibrating his voice for the succession wars in the event of a Bush defeat or a crippled second term.

There are certainly worse ideas. At this point there is nothing the more libertarian wing of the GOP can do to influence the nomination or the party platform. Some of the smart money is leaving the game early and thinking big thoughts about a Republican Party Reptile coup for 2008. Sullivan's "eagles" -- permissive on social policy, fiscally conservative, happy neocon warriors -- are looking at the nomination fight four years hence.


SULLIVAN SEEMS TO harbor the hope that one can be hip and Republican. His disaffection with Bush is thus not really about policy; it's about style. Bush and his party do not understand and do not want to understand the libertarian lifestyles and political positions of the creative elites who drive the American economy.

From Sullivan & Co.'s perspective, Bush's public courting of the red state Babbits and the fundamentalist boobocracy suggests a want of taste. Sullivan can't come out and say that, so he is contenting himself by being pessimistic and snippy from the sidelines.

A question for Bush is whether Sullivan is out there on his own or if he the leading edge of a general revolt of the well-educated against the Republicans' lack of style and wit. But it isn't a very big question.


Jay Currie's work is archived at JayCurrie.com.

[Pokey78]

Pinging the soon-to-be-put-on-hiatus Sullivan list.

[Howlin]

LOL!

[BlazingArizona]

There are certainly worse ideas. At this point there is nothing the more libertarian wing of the GOP can do to influence the nomination or the party platform. Some of the smart money is leaving the game early and thinking big thoughts about a Republican Party Reptile coup for 2008. Sullivan's "eagles" -- permissive on social policy, fiscally conservative, happy neocon warriors -- are looking at the nomination fight four years hence.

Dare we dream of a Stossel/Rice ticket in '08?

[Unam Sanctam]

I've always suspected that Sullivan and Hitchens supported the war more because of their hatred of religious conservatism, and Islam is just the most extreme and threatening to their sexual libertinistic values. They certainly seem to share almost as big a hatred of Christian conservatives as if Islamists (even though there is absolutely no comparison because the latter support violence whereas the former do not). I've appreciated their support for the right cause, but I really wonder about their motives.

[GeronL]

Dare we dream of a Stossel/Rice ticket in '08?

Maybe for the Libertarian Party.

[NYCVirago]

Good article. The one thing I wish the author would point out is that it's more profitable for Sullivan to be against Bush, regarding writing jobs. It's like how Bill O'Reilly is ignored by mainstream media until he knocks Bush.

[Prodigal Son]

That would be kind of cool actually.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Sullivan's blog has become all but unreadable this last month or so, as more and more space is increasingly taken up with his peculiar idee fixe -- i.e., that the "right" of two grown men to register their silverware pattern at J.C. Penneys is the pre-eminent legal/moral issue of the day -- and less and less space to the urgent particulars of the abortion holocaust, the War on Terror, etcetera, etcetera.

He has squandered the right to be taken seriously by thinking men and women.

It's just as starkly simple as that. Damned shame, really.

[cat lover too]

"It's like how Bill O'Reilly is ignored by mainstream media until he knocks Bush."

Yes, didn't I just see an article in the last couple of days saying that O'Reilly is now down on President Bush?

Those darn fair weather friends.

[NYCVirago]

O'Reilly dissed Bush on Good Morning America -- but hey, he's got books to sell! It's in today's papers, and getting fairly big play.

[Amelia]

He knew the social conservative pill he was swallowing when he endorsed Bush in the last go-round. Also, Bush's free-spending ways should have been evident from his campaign promises. Why threaten to jump now?

I've been wondering the same thing about some FReepers who claim Bush has "betrayed" them.

[Gracey]

All I can say to my dear Andrew Sullivan is that Life is NOT Perfect. On the Right you get the Social Conservatives.... but on the Left you get the ANTI Americans, wimpy when it comes to defending our country, hate the military, hate the war, anti capitalist Leftists. Geez, you mean Andrew would not be happy with a "civil union" for gays? The parts don't fit to call it a Marriage. Think about it!

Come back where you belong Andrew, and put up with the Social Conservatives. They're not half as bad as your leftist scumbag unAmericans.

[Nonstatist]

It's more particular than that Sullivan is a social libertarian; his primary interest is in "gay" rights, gay marriage, gay this, gay that. Gay, Gay, Gay trumps all other concerns. If GAY were not in the news right now, he'd be as happy as a kid at the circus. He is a very sensible person except for this GAY-thing obsession of his.

[wayoverontheright]

I've been reading Sullivan for some time now, and yes, he has grown tedious. That said, I think what got his goat is the method Bush wants to use to "save marriage", i.e., a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and I'm with Sullivan, Neal Boortz, and others on this one. Anyone cognizant of the value of states rights to our union would oppose such an anti-if not un-constitutional event. No marriage license comes from the federal govt., they come from the state.

If two homosexuals wish their union to be recognized by the state, I think it's foolish, unnecessary, makes them look petty, envious, and small, will have consequences that will make them rue the day they made it legal, but for the life of me I cannot think of ONE right that it takes away from me, or ONE harm that it does to me, except the attemp to stop it with a Federal intrusion which always harms our very fragile governing framework by usurping powers which to me clearly belong to the states.

I will vote for Bush no matter how he plays this issue, as it is simply not pivotal for me, but, with as much "triangulation" as he has been doing lately, I think not co-opting this issue by giving in to at least civil unions is a political blunder which may help to install the Commiecrats in 2004.

[Semper Paratus]

He is a very sensible person except for this GAY-thing obsession of his.

Same thing for David Brudnoy once he came out.
But he is gravely ill now and may not recover.

[misterrob]

You make a great point here. Far too often people on one side of an issue that is not going their way will use the government to enforce what they want to see happen. Gay unions are a state matter and if Vermont, Mass and Hawaii want to recognize them, then so be it. Just don't make Virginia, Michigan, Arizona, etc follow suit if they elect not to. Conservatives who are trying to take the issue away from the states are not walking the talk here.

[Britton J Wingfield]

I skip over most of his tedious gay marriage stuff.

As for his criticism of Bush, it's not any worse than most of what I read from freepers who still support W. I think he needs the criticism.

Like Sullivan, I have some huge problems with some of Bush's actions, but I am still going to vote for him. Bottom line: He's the one who will not surrender western civilization to the islamofascists in the name of the U.N.

[misterrob]

He's the one who will not surrender western civilization to the islamofascists in the name of the U.N.

---

No, just the Mexicans.....

[misterrob]

He's the one who will not surrender western civilization to the islamofascists in the name of the U.N.

---

No, just the Mexicans.....