Printer friendly version

August 3, 2004

A Professional Dupe?

In yesterday's regular update of my blogroll, I moved Andrew Sullivan even farther down. Here's a crystallization of the reason:

It's a legitimate position, but it essentially means that, whatever the Democrats say, they can never get the benefit of the doubt in this war. I think that's blinkered. 9/11 changed a lot. It didn't change the far left, who saw it as another reason to hate America. But it changed America, and the Democrats seem to me to be absorbing this fact. If you believe in this war as strongly as I do, then it seems to me it has to be a bipartisan affair at some point, just as the Cold War was for many years. Why should we simply dismiss out of hand a candidate's declaration that he will fight it just as forcefully as Bush? why aren't we open to a real debate about tactics and strategy? Isn't that the strength of a democracy, rather than a dictatorship? Why this sneering at what appears to be an accommodation by the Democratic party to the perilous reality we live in? Why not a celebration? This is a defeat of the left, after all. Edwards said: "We are at war." You cannot be clearer than that. I appreciate skepticism applied to this, given Kerry's record. But he's also a patriot and I hope he sees the dangers we face. And this war is not - and never should be - a device to win permanent Republican dominance in American politics. It's a war to defend the American constitution and Western freedom. I'm happy to welcome anyone to that cause. Why aren't so many Republicans?

This barely pretends to be analysis. As if the moderate phase of Kerry's campaign began just after 9/11. As if the Democrat primaries didn't stand as the final eruption of the mounting liberal fantasy that 9/11 changed nothing and that acting as if it had was a form of neofascism (one likely to keep them out of power). As if Kerry's long-term record and general suspicion of Democrats' national security inclinations were the only reasons to be skeptical of easily negated admissions that "we are at war" — forgetting the Deaniacs and the prominence of Michael Moore and the coziness with precisely those Western leaders most likely to be in bed with our enemies.

Perhaps the only remaining justification for reading Andrew Sullivan at all is the perfect example he provides of what is wrong with political discourse in modern times. For reasons that we all know, but that aren't included in Sullivan's "analysis," he's discarded all factors except the very narrow range within which he can kinda-sorta square the Kerry/war circle. Then — and this is the master deception of our age, visible in Sullivan's rhetorical sword because he's whacked the damn thing so hard on the wall of reason so many times — he twists the whole construction around to phrase it in terms of tolerance and a big hugging welcome that those meanies on the right withhold for political purposes.

Posted by Justin Katz at August 3, 2004 10:21 AM
Bloggers Blogging
Comments

Sullivan is on vacation this month. He better be careful, many of his readers may realize they can live without him. It is apparent that he is trying to square his politically liberal social politics with his hawkish war politics and he is going to great lengths to find something, anything in Kerry to provide him with rhetorical and ideological cover on the war. I think Sullivan's overarching desire to back a dog in the presidential fight is forcing him to legitimize supporting one that he is aligned with socially instead of one he is aligned with geopolitically. Despite his assertions to the contrary, it seems his priorities are more 9/10 than 9/12, so to speak, but he just can't admit it to others or even himself. His perception of Bush's social policies, and how they affect him as a gay man, are simply another facet of a battle he has fought his whole life. The war on terror is only a few years old. Given this choice, it seems Sullivan will fight his lifelong nemesis over more recent ones, though he may occasionally attempt to claim otherwise.

Posted by: Marc Comtois at August 3, 2004 10:51 AM

I have far more trust in Kerry to fight the war on terror than I do in President Bush. I believe that Kerry has greater integrity and character than Bush does. I think Kerry will do much more to make the United States both strong and respected around the world. I don't find Bush trustworthy.

Posted by: Joel Thomas at August 3, 2004 11:14 AM

Yes, Joel. Well spoken. Your brilliant articulation of why you support Kerry is almost as meaningful as a rerun of the McKinley campaign. This sort of "duh, hey" mentality certainly convinces me I've been misled in my perceptions of George W. Bush. Thanks so much for the enlightenment.

Posted by: greg at August 3, 2004 3:01 PM

Greg,

Well, I could refer you to a whole host of top retired military officers who think Bush can't be trusted. I could point to retired General Zinni or Admiral Crowe for their reasonings on how Bush squandered precious resources and time and alienated relationships by going into Iraq.

I could cite the stupidity of references to "Old Europe" and Bush's "call my lawyer" dismissal of international law. I could point to the fact that Bush lied when he said that the vast majority of his tax cuts would go to the bottom spectrum of tax payers. I could point to the idea that in 2000 one of the key points of Bush's campaigning was that he ridiculed Clinton/Gore for engaging in "nation-building," but that within 10 months he embraced "nation-building" as the cornerstone of his foreign policy.

Posted by: Joel Thomas at August 3, 2004 6:18 PM

"I could point to the idea that in 2000 one of the key points of Bush's campaigning was that he ridiculed Clinton/Gore for engaging in 'nation-building,' but that within 10 months he embraced 'nation-building' as the cornerstone of his foreign policy." Doesn't that show that Bush understands that 9/11 changed the world? Or would you rather have as president somebody who can't change his strategic thinking?

Posted by: ELC at August 4, 2004 11:18 AM

ELC,

If you are saying that Bush could not have, while running for president, anticipated such an event a 9/11 and thought through a comprehensive and nuanced foreign policy approach, then I would have to wonder about Bush's judgment and intellect. Years before 9/11, experts were coming on programs such as Nightline and warning that terrorism was coming to the U.S.

Posted by: Joel Thomas at August 4, 2004 12:50 PM

Well, why didn't the Senate Foreign Relations committee or some other such useless eaters anticipate and prepare a nuanced approach?

Talking about trustworthiness - Kerry can't even act on his personal beliefs - he "personally" believes human life begins at conception, but is more than happy to keep its destruction legal (and would be proud to fund it). Yeah, I really trust a guy who either (1) is willing to support what he personally believes to be murder in order to gain power or (2) is willing to lie about what he personally believes as a fundamental truth in order to gain power.

Not to mention his whole limosine liberal lifestyle (I'm liberal for thee, but not for me). The man is a complete phony. Which, unfortunately, just makes him a run-of-the-mill politician.

Posted by: c matt at August 5, 2004 3:46 PM

President Bush's wife is pro-choice/pro-abortion. The President doesn't show any obvious discomfort about his wife's views.

I'm against the death penalty, but I believe that states have the Constitutional authority to eanct capital punishment laws.

Posted by: Joel Thomas at August 5, 2004 4:25 PM

"I think Kerry will do much more to make the United States both strong and respected around the world."

What, precisely, will Kerry do to accomplish this? And what do you mean by 'strong' and 'respected'? That Kerry will increase the military budget? How is he going to generate respect - most of the people who supposedly hate America hate America - they don't care who is president. And many of them base their hatred on mistaken information about America fed them through school textbooks and media that are strongly slanted against America, if not repeating outright lies. If you think any of this will change because Kerry wins the election by a few percentage points, you are sadly deluded. The only thing that will change is the Kerry will give outsize influence over U.S. foreign policy to various foreign leaders, like that paragon of selflessness, Jaques Chirac.

Posted by: Mike S. at August 9, 2004 11:32 AM

From the LA Times, evidence that Kerry's election isn't going to change the actual behavior of the Europeans, just make them feel better...

Posted by: Mike S. at August 9, 2004 3:38 PM