Skip to comments.Who Knew?
Posted on 06/16/2004 9:58:42 PM PDT by Sarah
Archive E-mail Comments Send to a Friend Print Version
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
WHO KNEW? [Jonah Goldberg ]
I read Andrew Sullivan's site fairly regularly, as do lots of people I know. In fact, I get some grief from some readers -- and Cornerites -- for paying as much attention to Sullivan as I do. That doesn't bother me. I respect Andrew, consider him a friend and I respect his influence which is an objective fact regardless of my personal attitudes.
As even moderate readers of Sullivan's site can attest, his positions of late have been something of a moving target. I get lots of conjecture from our mutual audiences about "what's going on" with Sullivan and it varies in persuasiveness. Whatever his motivations, no one who reads his stuff can deny that he's moved increasingly into the anti-Bush camp, often for reasons that don't seem powerful or at least persuasive enough to match his pro-Bush conviction from, say, this time last year (See my "everyone into the pool" post below).
But I must say I was surprised to discover this link from the gay magazine The Advocate. It seems that Andrew had been unequivocal about his opinions on Bush in that publication but not in his blog. In his advocate essay he writes:
But its time to say something very clearly: Bushs endorsement of antigay discrimination in the U.S. Constitution itself is a deal-breaker. I cant endorse him this fall. Like many other gay men and women who have supported him, despite serious disagreements, I feel betrayed, abused, attacked. And... I will be excoriated by the same people who always denounce anyone who doesnt toe the Democratic Party line. What took you so long? they sneer. Hope, engagement, principle are my answers. I do not regret trying to make conservatism safe for gays. Its still possible to be in favor of small government, low taxes, a tough foreign policy, and to be a proud gay man. My principles havent changed. Nor will they anytime soon. But when a president allies himself with forces that really do want to keep gay people in jail, therapy, or the closet, its time to break off. The deal is broken. And no amount of rationalization can make it whole again.
Now I disagree with much (but not all) of what Andrew says in his essay. But it's an honest and decent position. Still what baffles me is why, to my knowledge, he's made no reference to this essay or his absolutist position on his site. Maybe, I missed it and he has. But I don't think so. Obviously, there's no binding code of ethics governing the blogosphere and even if there were I doubt it would have anything to say about not linking to articles you've written elsewhere or being obligated to express every significant opinion you have. But still, reading Andrew over the last year, you would have gotten the impression that at least theoretically his mind was open on who to support. According to this piece, it isn't. And that strikes me as an extremely significant silence.
Indeed, last March, Andrew offered this response to a post by Kathryn Lopez:
DON'T RUSH ME: National Review's Kathryn Lopez made the following remark before my spring break: "I do wish Sullivan would save time and come out for Kerry now. In just a matter of time he will come up with the rationalizations, but it's taking him painfully long to get on with it. I'm betting all Kerry will have to do is say that he's against terrorism." I'm mystified by this remark. It has always seemed to me that a political writer is not necessarily partisan. Some of us are actually trying to figure out who's the better candidate for the next four years and haven't made our minds up already. This time in the last election cycle, I was for McCain before I was for Gore. It took till the fall for me to realize where Gore was headed and narrowly opted for W. And one of the unique joys of a blog like this is that a writer can actually think out loud in real time together with the readers. Is that a crime? Am I supposed to stop thinking at all? Now, no one need wonder for more than a few nano-seconds whom National Review will endorse this fall. That's fine. But it's equally fine for others to take a more independent approach. There's a difference between "rationalizations" and "reasons."
I think that's all fine, if a bit haughty. But, Andrew, whatever happened to the benefits of "thinking out loud"?
Posted at 08:51 PM
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
boy you're fast! I re-edited and reposted immediately when I realized I'd copied the whole 'the corner' file!
My post to you has disappeared.
I got it as a mail to me, but I'd already contacted the admin to delete the entire post.
So Sullivan demonstrates once again -- for the umpteenth time -- that he is a one issue writer. The issue of gay rights controls all his positions. His manifestly powerful mind makes it easy for him to speak intelligently on all manner of topics, from fiscal policy to the philosophy of Michael Oakeshott. But all of that is just parlor talk for Sullivan, the stuff of lively verbal jousting. When the rubber meets the road only one issue counts, and behind it War and Peace take a distant second place, and in fealty to it ginned up charges of "torture" may be used to attack its enemies.
I concur. I've been thinking that for a while. Andrew's obsession with his sexuality overrides everything else - his religion, his politics, his economics. There is nothing he won't eventually sacrifice in order to enwrap his own sexual fetishes with a cloak of nobility.
What it comes down to is the homosexuals are not on our side, no matter what they say or believe about economics or family or foreign policy. The primary goal is to make America a homosexual country that tolerates some heterosexual attitudes- barely.
my comments here may be of interest.
I was answering you over on the other thread when it got pulled. Thought this over here may be of interest to you anyway.
I am interested though in what happened with trixie.
I gave her a hard time for coming to FR trolling for followers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.