But enough about me, what does ANDREW SULLIVAN think of me?
He was good at it before, but it's only under the tutelage of Tina Brown that Sully has really excelled at the "LOOK AT ME BEING TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS" attention whoring.
Sully's still of the thinking that today's Republicans are the Tories over in the UK, and he's constantly surprised at how wrong that assumption is day after day.
Just look at the base to which Andrew Sullivan is a "public intellectual". His main virtue is, as you have said, is to let the right pretend that they are not run by shrieking xenophobes. He appeals to the same people who like Brooks and Noonan. He chides the crazy base, and he chides the left, letting people pretend to be egalitarian while pretending "both sides do it".
The base of the right is, overall, not very bright. They just want their egos stroked. So, someone like Sullivan can be an "intellectual".
I think when his flame fades, he will convert and be a conserva-dem. He will be able to absolve himself of the crazies and fundies, and can go to his retirement as a "good guy". I think he knows he's becoming less and less relevant. I think he also knows he will be crushed on the left. As a conserva-dem, he can occasionally publish his Tory conservative prattle as the "gay ex-conservative", and spend his retirement with his husband (who he can marry thanks to progressives).
I don't know, bluegal. A lot of us think this election is pretty damn important, and the stakes pretty damn high. A party funded by billionaires and controlled by the craziest faction of right wingers with access to power anywhere in the Western world are now right on the cusp of controlling the White House (and bolstering their control of Congress). Millions of lives will be seriously harmed if this happens -- and that's just counting the ones who will lose access to Medicare and Medicaid, and as a consequence die years earlier than they would with access to health care.
Four years of Romney / Ryan will be enough to lock in another 40 years of ultraconservative control of the Supreme Court.
Maybe it seems appropriate to you to bash people who are freaking out. I know you have been certain about this election's outcome since the beginning; I've never heard a hint of doubt in your voice that this thing is already sewed up in Obama's favor. But the polls certainly don't show that. There's no evidence Romney "doesn't want to be president." And given Republican history stealing elections, and the unprecedented efforts they are making this year to disenfranchise voters, I think your confidence is wholly unwarranted, and Sullivan's distress completely understandable.
I know, I know, he's the guy who called the left "a forth column," implying we are all a bunch of traitors. But that was a long time ago. And in the weekly driftglass/bluegal exchange of ideas, *you* are the one who's always suggesting that we *can* reason with and talk to conservatives in pursuit of common ground. Sullivan should be your Exhibit A. Why bash someone after they came around to support the causes you care about?
Lee, Sorry, but anyone who thinks Sullivan is "still of the thinking that the Republicans are the Tories" hasn't been following his blog closely enough to say with any accuracy what he thinks. He has completely repudiated the GOP in its present incarnation.
What he clings to like a fool is *conservatism,* not the GOP.
"What he clings to like a fool is *conservatism,* not the GOP."
Until we get multiple viable parties, they are the same thing. The Rockefeller Republicans are the Blue Dog Democrats. Otherwise, the Libertarians usually caucus with the Republicans. While the Libertarians have influence at the top of the party, that is the plutocrat class that wants Cheap Labor conservatism, and makes it align with the Punishment Politics of the base.
To your point, where is the conservatism that is *not* the Evangelical / Tea Party GOP base yet which has political capital and influence? There were a few, but they seem to have been primaried away or into silence.
Mike, Well, we have a two party system, so we won't be getting multiple viable parties, like, ever. At least not until we can replace our Winner Take All electoral system with proportional representation. I don't see that ever happening -- not until the next world-changing event, like a Civil War or World War. Barring that kind of dramatic intervention, there will never be the necessary public support to switch systems. Until then, the two party system is entrenched in the design of American democracy.
As for the rest of what you say: I agree with all of it. And don't take me as a Sullivan fanboy; just last night I was irritated at his idiotic suggestion that Obama must now embrace Simpson Bowles to retake the lead over Romney. Sullivan surely knows that 85% of the public has never heard of Simpson Bowles. His position on it will have a negligible effect on the polls. So, Sullivan is just being manipulative. Obama told Sully a while ago that he reads his blog, and in cases like this, I feel Sully is trying to talk directly to the president. He even said a couple of days ago that part of the basis for his intense post-debate criticism is to try to persuade Obama to change his act.
You're undoubtedly right that there is no form of conservative in America today that is not compromised by ties to evangelism or the tea party that has political power or influence. But that's the very reason Sullivan has repudiated the GOP! He has fantasy notions of what conservatism *could* be, and he once had terrible fantasies about what American conservatism actually was. But at least on this point he has come to his senses; he's as staunch an opponent of today's GOP as you, me, or bluegal. And believe me, in a world where we need as many allies as we can find to avoid the cataclysm that will follow a Romney victory, I am glad Sullivan is pulling *for* us instead of *against* us.
Still, I wouldn't mind attacking him on the basis of sincere disagreement. But mocking his reaction to Obama's collapse in the polls? Listen: I thought the photoshop was beautiful, and funny. But it made a point I disagree with, that Sullivan is being hysterical and should be mocked. I don't think he's being hysterical. I think most of the rest of the left is in deep denial about the very genuine damage Obama took in the first debate.
But hey, I should not be so judgmental. The horror of what awaits us if Romney and Ryan win is so monumental that I can understand the refusal to acknowledge it any sooner than is necessary.
Bluegal, I submitted a longer reply to Mike K. yesterday, right after the shorter one at 4:01. Did you not receive it? Or did you decide not to approve it. If that latter, that's fine; I respect your prerogative to determine which comments to approve. I'm only asking because if it somehow got lost in the transmission, I would try to retype it. If you rejected it because of what I said, I won't go to the trouble of trying to repost.
Can we set his beard on fire? I'm thinking a little jellied gasoline (aka "napalm") in its inert state smeared in the hair, and then a match flicked onto it while standing at a safe distance. I think the YouTube of that would go viral, and start a new expression -- "Face on fire."
Just found your blog.
ReplyDeleteLOVE this bit about Mr. Sullivan. He is utterly depressing me...a GOP plant by any chance???
Sullivan is a vehicle with two speeds, idle and a billion.
ReplyDeleteLOL! That's awesome.
ReplyDeleteSully's still of the thinking that today's Republicans are the Tories over in the UK, and he's constantly surprised at how wrong that assumption is day after day.
And glasses too trendy to be David Brooks.
ReplyDeleteJust look at the base to which Andrew Sullivan is a "public intellectual". His main virtue is, as you have said, is to let the right pretend that they are not run by shrieking xenophobes. He appeals to the same people who like Brooks and Noonan. He chides the crazy base, and he chides the left, letting people pretend to be egalitarian while pretending "both sides do it".
ReplyDeleteThe base of the right is, overall, not very bright. They just want their egos stroked. So, someone like Sullivan can be an "intellectual".
I think when his flame fades, he will convert and be a conserva-dem. He will be able to absolve himself of the crazies and fundies, and can go to his retirement as a "good guy". I think he knows he's becoming less and less relevant. I think he also knows he will be crushed on the left. As a conserva-dem, he can occasionally publish his Tory conservative prattle as the "gay ex-conservative", and spend his retirement with his husband (who he can marry thanks to progressives).
Mike.K.
I don't know, bluegal. A lot of us think this election is pretty damn important, and the stakes pretty damn high. A party funded by billionaires and controlled by the craziest faction of right wingers with access to power anywhere in the Western world are now right on the cusp of controlling the White House (and bolstering their control of Congress). Millions of lives will be seriously harmed if this happens -- and that's just counting the ones who will lose access to Medicare and Medicaid, and as a consequence die years earlier than they would with access to health care.
ReplyDeleteFour years of Romney / Ryan will be enough to lock in another 40 years of ultraconservative control of the Supreme Court.
Maybe it seems appropriate to you to bash people who are freaking out. I know you have been certain about this election's outcome since the beginning; I've never heard a hint of doubt in your voice that this thing is already sewed up in Obama's favor. But the polls certainly don't show that. There's no evidence Romney "doesn't want to be president." And given Republican history stealing elections, and the unprecedented efforts they are making this year to disenfranchise voters, I think your confidence is wholly unwarranted, and Sullivan's distress completely understandable.
I know, I know, he's the guy who called the left "a forth column," implying we are all a bunch of traitors. But that was a long time ago. And in the weekly driftglass/bluegal exchange of ideas, *you* are the one who's always suggesting that we *can* reason with and talk to conservatives in pursuit of common ground. Sullivan should be your Exhibit A. Why bash someone after they came around to support the causes you care about?
Lee,
ReplyDeleteSorry, but anyone who thinks Sullivan is "still of the thinking that the Republicans are the Tories" hasn't been following his blog closely enough to say with any accuracy what he thinks. He has completely repudiated the GOP in its present incarnation.
What he clings to like a fool is *conservatism,* not the GOP.
Dennis,
ReplyDelete"What he clings to like a fool is *conservatism,* not the GOP."
Until we get multiple viable parties, they are the same thing. The Rockefeller Republicans are the Blue Dog Democrats. Otherwise, the Libertarians usually caucus with the Republicans. While the Libertarians have influence at the top of the party, that is the plutocrat class that wants Cheap Labor conservatism, and makes it align with the Punishment Politics of the base.
To your point, where is the conservatism that is *not* the Evangelical / Tea Party GOP base yet which has political capital and influence? There were a few, but they seem to have been primaried away or into silence.
Mike.K.
Jesus. Did I really write "a forth column?" Not even "fourth!" Wrong twice in one word!!* I lose the internets.
ReplyDelete* Because it should have been, obviously, "fifth."
Mike,
ReplyDeleteWell, we have a two party system, so we won't be getting multiple viable parties, like, ever. At least not until we can replace our Winner Take All electoral system with proportional representation. I don't see that ever happening -- not until the next world-changing event, like a Civil War or World War. Barring that kind of dramatic intervention, there will never be the necessary public support to switch systems. Until then, the two party system is entrenched in the design of American democracy.
As for the rest of what you say: I agree with all of it. And don't take me as a Sullivan fanboy; just last night I was irritated at his idiotic suggestion that Obama must now embrace Simpson Bowles to retake the lead over Romney. Sullivan surely knows that 85% of the public has never heard of Simpson Bowles. His position on it will have a negligible effect on the polls. So, Sullivan is just being manipulative. Obama told Sully a while ago that he reads his blog, and in cases like this, I feel Sully is trying to talk directly to the president. He even said a couple of days ago that part of the basis for his intense post-debate criticism is to try to persuade Obama to change his act.
You're undoubtedly right that there is no form of conservative in America today that is not compromised by ties to evangelism or the tea party that has political power or influence. But that's the very reason Sullivan has repudiated the GOP! He has fantasy notions of what conservatism *could* be, and he once had terrible fantasies about what American conservatism actually was. But at least on this point he has come to his senses; he's as staunch an opponent of today's GOP as you, me, or bluegal. And believe me, in a world where we need as many allies as we can find to avoid the cataclysm that will follow a Romney victory, I am glad Sullivan is pulling *for* us instead of *against* us.
Still, I wouldn't mind attacking him on the basis of sincere disagreement. But mocking his reaction to Obama's collapse in the polls? Listen: I thought the photoshop was beautiful, and funny. But it made a point I disagree with, that Sullivan is being hysterical and should be mocked. I don't think he's being hysterical. I think most of the rest of the left is in deep denial about the very genuine damage Obama took in the first debate.
But hey, I should not be so judgmental. The horror of what awaits us if Romney and Ryan win is so monumental that I can understand the refusal to acknowledge it any sooner than is necessary.
Bluegal,
ReplyDeleteI submitted a longer reply to Mike K. yesterday, right after the shorter one at 4:01. Did you not receive it? Or did you decide not to approve it. If that latter, that's fine; I respect your prerogative to determine which comments to approve. I'm only asking because if it somehow got lost in the transmission, I would try to retype it. If you rejected it because of what I said, I won't go to the trouble of trying to repost.
Thanks,
DD
Can we set his beard on fire? I'm thinking a little jellied gasoline (aka "napalm") in its inert state smeared in the hair, and then a match flicked onto it while standing at a safe distance. I think the YouTube of that would go viral, and start a new expression -- "Face on fire."
ReplyDelete