Sullivan Watch

I am introducing a new semi-regular feature ("semi-regular" being whenever the hell I get around to it) called "Sullivan Watch."

The general concept of a "watch" is not new, nor is it as it pertains specifically to Andrew Sullivan.  In fact, entire blogs have been dedicated to the task.  But to my knowledge, his "watchers" have heretofore been mainly on the left, and there has not been any sort of sustained critique of Andrew Sullivan from a libertarian/right perspective.

As I explained in a recent comment on my site, Andrew has been an immense inspiration to me in the past and even helped me evolve my position on gay marriage from that of many other gay Republicans (i.e., either opposed or reluctant, at best) into the radical supporter that I am today.

But over the past year or more, I have found him less and less tolerable.  In the past, he accused others of "going wobbly" on terrorism after 9/11, but now he has turned his blog over to the rantings of the radicalized left who care more about the shortcomings of the U.S. military than the immense evil of those they fight against. Far from wobbly, that's seismic.

He affects a tone of superiority on issues where he supposedly remains "conservative," such as the budget deficit, but his spending priorities are, to me, as much a la carte as those of any congressman of either party.

His inability to find even a single redeeming feature in the current president is a function of either sheer ignorance of, or inattention to, reality. Regardless of his personal pique at George Bush or the FMA, a true "conservative" would never in a billion years endorse John Kerry. It just defies all logic and available evidence. He need not have endorsed at all, but he chose to do so, and I cannot possibly disagree with him more strongly on that.

Sullivan's oft-repeated defense is that he "calls them like he sees them."  That is fine, but I and many like myself see him drifting from his moorings, and it is a shame.  I used to think Andrew was my ideal combination of gay and libertarian, but I no longer believe that.

Now, I know this sounds odd coming from someone who is actually advertising on Sullivan's website, but the fact is, I was once a devoted reader of his, and I'm sure he has a few other current readers like me who might find some solace at The Malcontent.

Sullivan Watch will puncture Andrew's pomposity, point out where this "conservative" most certainly is not, and otherwise lament his evolution.  Who knows, I might even give him a pat on the back when warranted.  And if you have something that you feel fits Sullivan Watch, send it my way.

So ... first up is none other than Adolf Hitler himself, who supplied Andrew's "Quote of the Day" for today:

"Why babble about brutality and get indignant about tortures? The masses want them. They need something that will give them a thrill of horror."

Clearly, it is easy to infer what the Abu Ghraib-obsessed Andrew meant to imply, although it is uncertain if his slur was targeted at the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General or a combination of them.

Andrew has trafficked in this kind of nonsense in the past, joining the oblivious minority who felt that "Dick Durbin said nothing wrong" when he compared U.S. troops to Nazis.  Ironically, if you're conservative and you make such a comparison, then as far as Andrew is concerned, it's Katie, bar the door!

Also under the header of "irony," he has dubbed previous cavalier comparisons to Hitler "a new low" in discourse.

Next up is the ever-acute Prism Warden.  He cuffs Andrew for previously being a vociferous opponent of "outing," but who is now peddling his own casual innuendo about a certain congressional leader.

And finally, we turn to James Taranto, the godfather of right-leaning Sullivan watchers, who dings Andrew's bizarre fixation on the book "Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed." Sullivan compared the book to Maoist tactics (after retracting a false allegation that the book contains nudity).

Writes Taranto:

Actually, we have a copy of the book, and it's not creepy at all. It's an adorable story about two kids with a lemonade stand. Sullivan ... ought to lighten up and let kids have a little fun. Then again, (his) self-serious preening does fill us with a childlike sense of joy.

Comments

[Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest)]

Malcontent, you go too far when you show that picture with the name Nancy so close to Andrew's . . .

[Peter Brinkmann]

I have to say that I agree for the most part with your intro statement to Sullivan watch. I find the emphasis that Andrew attaches to certain issues, and the broad conclusions he jumps to, a bit over the top. I am a former Republican, and I consider myself to be a conservative, although lots of conservatives would call me a liberal. I like to think that I call them as I see them also.

I think Andrew had too much invested in the gay marriage issue. I'm totally tolerant of gays and their orientation. But Andrew expects too much of the non-gays if he thinks the marriage issue is going to succeed any time soon. It will take another generation or so before gays marrying will be accepted across the board in America.

And by then, who knows, gays may figure out that there are more important things to care about. Just wait til the divorces start happening, and you get into palimony, and alimony, and child-custody battles.

[Josh]

Oh please, this is so last year. Some of us have been doing Sully Watches for many months.

But no, really, this should be useful—I had given up even reading the guy because I found him so insufferably inconsistent. I'm glad you'll pick up the slack.

[John]

It will be interesting to see if you can offer a good conservative critique on Sullivan's writings. On most postings and editorials, he gets it spot on from a conservative standpoint. You can sucessfully critique from a libertarian or Republican perspective, but a conservative critique will be a more difficult task.