Beyond Credulity

Reading the news that a South African High Court approved gay marriage today, I was mildly happy in that muted, half-smile way you feel when your neighbor tells you they've just won a new car on Price is Right, and Bob Barker grabbed their ass three times instead of the customary two. Sure, you want Bob Barker to grab your ass, I want Bob Barker to grab my ass, but hey, sometimes other people have all the luck.

Afterwards, I scurried on over to torture.com to read quite possibly the dumbest statement in all human history.

South Africa's post-apartheid Constitution explicitly granted gays and lesbians full rights as citizens. There is no valid citizenship without the right to marry the person you love; and so the global movement toward equality in marriage advances again. Who would have guessed twenty years ago that the land of apartheid would now be ahead of the United States in its support for civil rights and equal protection of laws?

What?

Hold on, I'm not sure you have my inflection here.

WHAT?!

Warning - severe personal apoplexy after the jump.

South Africa, Andrew. South Africa. Bastion of civil rights and equal protection laws? This South Africa, Andrew?!

In this country, the dominant ANC holds such a commanding lead in parliament that it effectively rules the country on its own, viewing any kind of opposition with suspicion. The economy is not growing fast enough to lift the population out of abject poverty or to address the huge structural inequalities. In this South Africa, former Marxist activists turned top government officials remain highly ambivalent about the private sector and foreign investment, and many of their attempts to improve the fortunes of their constituents have resulted in little more than the enrichment of a few black patriarchs. Meanwhile, this South Africa is being ravaged by AIDS, thanks in part to the government's bizarre refusal for years to acknowledge the link between HIV and AIDS and its insistence that the disease can be treated with a homemade remedy. President Mbeki responds to criticism by playing the race card. And he has pursued a questionable foreign policy, coddling local dictators while failing to pay enough attention to critical problems at home.

Yes, you have it correct. Andrew Sullivan, of all people, calls a nation ravaged by AIDS, due largely in part to its own government's incompetence, negligence, and sheer animus, ahead of the United States for civil rights and equal protection of the laws.

And just what about all that equality? From the same article:

Roughly 45 percent of South Africa's 44 million people are impoverished. Unemployment has increased by more than 3 million since 1994; the overall unemployment rate is now approaching 40 percent and is even higher among the 75 percent of the population that is black.

The ANC's most dramatic failure involves an issue that stems directly from South Africa's history of oppression: the question of income redistribution. The need for some measure of wealth redistribution in South Africa is dramatic. Although exact measurements vary, the country is thought to have a Gini coefficient of around 0.6, making it, along with Brazil, the most unequal society in the world.

Does this sound like a population enjoying a cornucopia of civil rights and equal protection of the law? And hey, if this isn't enough, just take a gander at Human Rights Watch's website for South Africa's human rights issues.

Many have said Sullivan practically lost his mind with the introduction of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Just today, James Taranto eviscerated Sullivan on that very assertion (scroll down to Sullivan vs. Sullivan).

While I am a great admirer of Sullivan's past work, especially his valuable arguments for gay marriage, I feel his quality of thought and logic has waned in the aftermath of the Federal Marriage Amendment. There certainly seems to be a correlation, and while correlation is not causation, it has been a bit suspect.

This, however, is beyond the pale. It is gob-smackingly vile for an HIV positive homosexual to praise the civil rights position of a nation that has arguably the worst record in the world on combating AIDS. It is so unhinged, so wild, bizarre, unthinkable, without any vestige of serious thought or consideration, that I'm completely unable to articulate the outrage I'm feeling without devolving into several paragraphs of severe profanity.

And he pulled this on World AIDS Day.

What is wrong with this guy? Has the issue of gay marriage driven him so over the edge, so far into sheer pathology, that he can say things like this aloud in earnest?

The man has become a one issue hack. I will never trust anything he has to say about anything ever again. His motivations are laid bare. All roads lead to gay marriage.

Big h/t to Josh, the cute brainiac at the Conjecturer, for helping me on South Africa research.

Comments

[Don]

You know, I never really cared for Andrew Sullivan. Maybe that's because I discovered him late in the game (I think I first started reading him in late 2003). Or maybe he was always a bit of a hack and something just didn't feel right about him.

[Robbie]

I'm so angry with him right now, you have no idea. On World AIDS Day. World AIDS Day!

That post took me awhile to write, because I had to keep going back and deleting all the "fucks" out of it.

The thing with him is, he really used to be a great thinker and writer. For a lot of gay conservatives, he was the gold standard, especially when we were first coming out or becoming conservative. Many of us were his disciples.

So, that he's sunk this low is very angering.

This, however, is the just plain most offensive thing I have ever seen him write. And today of all days. All because of his hard-on for marriage. I really, really can't articulate how furious I am at him right now.

[North Dallas Thirty]

I can't help but think that this is Mbeki and the ANC's way of getting one of the louder groups of world leftists on their side. Like Gavin Newsom is showing in San Francisco, all you have to do is at least pretend to support gay marriage, and it doesn't matter WHAT you do after that point.

Unfortunately, Sully is no longer the exception in the gay community, a little point of light in a blackness full of knee-jerk hatred of all things conservative or Republican and blind support of anything arbitrarily defined as "gay-positive"; his bulb has burnt out, and it is rather sad.

[John]

Wait, are you actually suggesting, in the bolded section of the FA study, that a redistribution and equalization of wealth is directly related to a nation's measure of equality and civil rights? Doesn't seem to be a very conservative position to take. Next thing you know, you'll be trying to rein in free markets, supporting progressive taxation and even approving of certain forms of affirmative action in an attempt to level the playing field and encourage the growth of the middle class. I thought the Right was about concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

[Robbie]

I thought the Right was about concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

I think it's safe to assume you don't know terribly much about the Right.

Pointing out that obscene inequality of South Africa's kind is unjust is not a default endorsement of socialism. That's quite a leap you made there. What are those, rocket boots?

When you're the most economically imbalanced nation in the world, no doubt there is severe corruption in government, major flaws in the economic system, and a fundamental disorder that is not conducive to civil rights. That there is a major element of kleptocracy involved probably goes without saying.

But, hey, they have gay marriage now, so they're way better than America.

[John]

I stand, in my fabulous socialist rocket boots, by my original question. The study you cite to dispute Sullivan specifically names the income and wealth imbalance as an obstacle to equality among South Africa's citizens. I seriously doubt that eradication of govt corruption alone would cure this imbalance, given the systemic and historical roots of South African poverty. If wealth redistribution is key to achieving stability and equal rights, implementation of some social and economic policies typically labelled 'liberal' or 'progressive' are unavoidable.

Sullivan's statement is not a wholeseale critique of the United States nor does he seem to be a South African apologist. Isn't your outrage just a little bit silly?
The 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection" with respect to gay rights has failed time and again, with one exception, in our higher courts. A nod of respect to the South African high court for reaching the unfulfilled promise of our own Constitution is hardly an endorsement of their current economic and social situation.

[Josh]

John, when you get your knowledge of the Right from Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman, it's easy to make those kinds of ridiculous generalizations. "I thought the Right was about concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands?" You have to be kidding—economic conservatism is all about offering an equal OPPORTUNITY, not an equal result. What that economic research about South Africa proves is that the ANC is clearly unconcerned with leveling the playing field or even providing any ways for the poor to rise out of poverty... something that is at best tangentially related to social welfare programs.

The essence of libertarian conservatism is creating an environment in which anyone can succeed on their own merits, independent of government assistance, affirmative action, handouts, or set-asides. South Africa's government is clearly uninterested in such a meritocratic society, and has chosen instead only to reward those few people with ties to government officials. And that IS a violation of a basic human right. It is impossible for a society to be just when the overwhelming majority of the population is deliberately kept in grinding poverty.

Also, read the HRW report. South Africa's treatment of HIV-infected children is deplorable. As Robbie said, how can you defend that?

[Bob Dodge]

In Sullivan's defense, the thrust of his post is absolutely correct. There is real irony in the fact that South Africa, a country known principally for its abuses of human rights, should recognize the dignity and worth of same-sex relationships before the United States. At least in this limited context, South Africa has moved in front of us.

Was Sullivan really trying to say that South Africa has a better record than the U.S. on civil rights across the board? It's such an absurd notion, that I'd have to doubt it.

At worst, Sullivan can be criticized for sloppy editing in his post. Robbie, on the other hand, might get his irony detector looked at.

[North Dallas Thirty]

And also, the irony in this statement:

Next thing you know, you'll be trying to rein in free markets, supporting progressive taxation and even approving of certain forms of affirmative action in an attempt to level the playing field and encourage the growth of the middle class.

Oddly enough, the United States has all three of those, and all the Krugman/Dowd set keeps pointing out is that income inequality is "increasing".

Perhaps what Krugman and Dowd need to confront is the fact that their constant liberal brainwashing of minorities that they are "victims" is not only deflating, but actually encourages a culture that is openly contemptuous of success and sees it as being a "sellout" -- ergo, the charge of "acting white" that is flung against black children who succeed in school.

Of course, these children invariably grow up and vote Democrat, lured by rhetoric that blames "the rich" for their problems and promises them free money for reproducing.

[Malcontent]

Sullivan's statement is not a wholeseale critique of the United States nor does he seem to be a South African apologist. Isn't your outrage just a little bit silly?

John, did you read what Sullivan wrote?:

Who would have guessed twenty years ago that the land of apartheid would now be ahead of the United States in its support for civil rights and equal protection of laws?

It doesn't get more wholesale than that!

Sullivan makes bombastic statements for effect, then he and his apologists try to revise history, or defend his blogging as a "work in progess," when others critique him. Surely others are free to "fisk" him, a practice he himself pioneered.

[Adam]

I briefly had the same thought that Sullivan did. However, I'm already well aware of the huge social problems in South Africa and so the thought didn't last long. A friend of mine did her epidemiology PhD fieldwork in South Africa and would often regale me with (horror) stories about the state of things.

I think there is a (mistaken) tendency to equate rights, equality, rule of law, and etc. with simple recognition of the same by the legal system (courts). But doing so misses the reality of complex human societies. Courts alone don't create rights (though they may be an instrumental part of enforcing them). To say that a society like South Africa, which is struggling with all the problems Robbie elucidated in his post, surpasses the U.S., or any other modern western country for that matter, in protection of civil rights is to look only at form and not substance. Indeed South Africa has a pretty Constitution (http://www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/constitution/saconst.html?rebookmark=1) that says many affirming and uplifting things and its Constitutional Court has also recently written some uplifting words but equality is more than words. To be clear, I don't intend to imply that a country's judicial system is irrelevant, clearly that is not correct, but reducing your view to only the judicial system blinds you to reality.

[Adam]

I want rocket boots too!

[Aatom]

I think this is a case of poor editing and overzealous rhetorical flourish, and not of Sullivan losing his mind completely. Surely he means that in this instance, South Africa, which indeed remains a deeply dysfunctional society, has shown itself to be more progressive than our own country on this issue. It is, in fact, the very factors you list above that create the ironic punch in the gut that I believe he is going for.

You would be right to call him on the poor phrasing, however.

[Robbie]

Aatom - The problem is, Sullivan is often guilty of "poor phrasing," when it comes to gay marriage issues. Eventually, I have to begin to wonder if it is simply poor phrasing, or if he really does view large swaths of unrelated issues exclusively through the gay marriage prism.

I generally let a lot of what Sullivan says slide, because there's really no point in getting worked up over it. On Catholic issues, for example, Mark Shea was correct in going after Sullivan's statements on Benedict XVI. Sullivan was very much intimating that Benedict is some sort of Nazi Jew-hater in some of his statements on usury. Benedict is absolutely nothing of the sort, however Sullivan has had no problem going off the deep end in these kinds of ways because of the homosexual issue with the Church.

For a guy who is supposed to be a thoughtful, nuanced writer, there is too much a pattern present in his rhetoric to put a lot of his stuff down to mere sloppy word choice.

Again, I usually let it go. There's almost no point in bothering, because he'll never change. However, on World AIDS Day, when I had been thinking about Africa in the first place, to see such an outrageous statement from him is nearly unforgivable.

[Aatom]

well, between Sullivan seeing every issue through the prism of gay marriage, and the gay left seeing gay issues through the prism of every other leftist pet cause, we pretty much have our bases covered, no?

you are an endearingly passionate writer, Robbie. Be careful or people will start accusing you of seeing everything through an emotional lens as well... ;)

[Robbie]

well, between Sullivan seeing every issue through the prism of gay marriage, and the gay left seeing gay issues through the prism of every other leftist pet cause, we pretty much have our bases covered, no?

LOL, you're being sarcastic, aren't you? =p

As for emotion, I can still chalk that up to youth, can't I? Does that still work at 26? Or should I officially know better by now? =)

[Aatom]

well, you're certainly more age-appropriate than Mr. Sullivan, that's for sure. and impressively well-spoken for such a young pup. :)