It’s Friday, so it must be time for me to write something about Andrew Sullivan!
Yesterday, Andrew penned a post that discussed his personal political evolution over the last few years that, I think, dovetails nicely with the short missive I provided on roughly the same topic. Lifting most of the post, really, Andrew commented,
[Matt Welch] accuses me first of being an “ideological shape-shifter.” But my own understanding of conservatism properly understood is that it is un-ideological, and actually anti-ideological. It has a predisposition to favor individual liberty and limited government and prudent foreign policy, but it is capable of adjusting pragmatically to new times and new problems. Unlike libertarians, conservatives – even those of us on the libertarian edge of conservatism – do believe government has a role beyond minimal protection. I believe in environmental protection, for example, and have done my entire life. I believe in free secondary education and government supported higher education.I’ve changed on a few issues; while I remain opposed to Roe, I’ve shifted toward accepting abortions in the first trimester; I’ve also shifted against my once unchastened belief in the utility of American military power to advance democracy (I was, however, against intervention in Somalia and Rwanda); and I’ve begun to worry that the last few decades have opened up too big an inequality gap in America for political stability in the long run.
These are shifts, yes. But they are good faith attempts to learn from mistakes and history and adjust to new circumstances.
In all honesty, it is posts like this that maintain my regard and respect for Andrew in spite of some of the more aberrant political ticks he sometimes displays (Palin, birthers, that bristling “christianist” tag). Whether I always agree with or like what he says on a given topic, it remains true in my mind that Andrew Sullivan is one of the most honest bloggers and pundits out there (and yes, I meant to put Andrew on that pedestal, Helen).
It is that honesty, Andrew’s general willingness to openly discuss and explore many sides of a particular issue and find ways of rooting out what each sides has to offer, that, I think, has generated such a broad and loyal following at the Dish. It’s certainly why, in my own case, I keep going back despite consistently reading certain posts that make me want to tear my hair out: I always feel like I’m getting the real deal at the Dish, at least insofar as Andrew, Patrick, and Chris see it.
And let’s be honest, that’s a rare and valuable thing in political and cultural discourse.
But Andrew seems to chalk his degree of intellectual honesty up to his political stripes by referencing his conception of conservatism “properly understood” as “anti-ideological” and claiming that that understanding has allowed for “good faith attempts to learn from mistakes and history and adjust to new circumstances”. My own read, on the other hand, is that it is Andrew’s integrity as a person that has engendered such a intellectual honesty and openness and that his integrity, for all my griping (I gripe because I love), has persevered in spite of his avowed ideological leanings.
It is not, as Andrew formulates, that his conception of conservative ideology, properly understood, has allowed for “good faith attempts to learn from mistakes and history and adjust to new circumstances”, but rather that his intellectual honesty as a person has forced his avowed ideological affiliation to reckon with those realities.
Indeed, as this previously infamous graph demonstrates, it seems overwhelmingly clear that Andrew’s avowed ideological affiliation has utterly failed to, “learn from mistakes and history and adjust to new circumstances,” which accounts for it’s plummeting popularity amongst an overwhelming majority of Americans.
To which Andrew and a host of other conservatives may choose to respond by pointing to this even more recent poll demonstrating that, in fact, despite the 2008 presidential election result and contrary to this poll, a majority of Americans consider their political views to be more conservative than ever.
The problem, they say, isn’t with conservatism, the problem lies within Republicanism, which is alternatively a poor and rotten vehicle for conservatism and/or hasn’t been substantially conservative for some time now. Now, as I made clear, I’m not here to trumpet any particular ideology or party and I’m certainly not going to suggest that Democrats are problem free and pure as the wind driven snow, but look: saying that the problem isn’t conservatism, it’s Republicanism is sort of like saying that the problem wasn’t communism, it was Stalin.
By which I mean, the implementation of ideologies within formal structures matter, otherwise we aren’t really talking about anything at all.
It’s all fine and well for a majority of Americans to talk about their political beliefs being conservative in theory, but what ideologies like conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, etc. have demonstrated to us time and time again is that what looks great in theory generally turns out to be much less so in practice. This is in no small part because the realm of theory — which let me be clear, I don’t harbour any animosity towards, I’m a theorizer — tends to be a simplified field considering only the dynamics that will contribute to a neat and clean picture wherein said theory has, as previously railed, “figured it all out”.
But the world of application is, frankly, much more complicated than all that, it requires, as Andrew himself has noted, that one avoid governing “by the book”. And while Andrew might like for his “properly understood conservatism” to deftly avoid this pitfall, what he fails to account for is that the book his conservatism governs by is one of outcomes. It basically says that, if you keep your hands to yourself and let a, b, c happen as they will, then x, y, and z should follow.
As Andrew formulates it, liberals focus on a, b, and c, for which they are chastened. But as I see it, this formulation also implies that conservatives focus on x, y, and z. And no matter upon which end you happen focused, you are still governing by a book.
Like Andrew, this governing by the book, or, as they case may be, by the theory, bothers me. It bothers me precisely because it takes the agency in political discourse away from the person and places it within the hands of the theory. And, as has been suggested, something usually goes awry with the theory. If we are to really engage in our political process, we must be present to every element of it, because the power to critically evaluate and analyze is not a skill possessed of theories, but that of people.
So in my own formulation, the locus of analysis must be wrested from the dominance of theories, which is prevalent and distrubingly ubiquitous on all sides, and reembraced as a responsibility of persons. It is precisely this kind of intellectual honesty whose pressing demands have, I would suggest, caused Andrew to simultaneously become a sought after blogger and an ideological black sheep by “making good faith attempts to learn from mistakes and history and adjust to new circumstances”.
But at the end of the day, only Andrew could have made those decisions, conservatism, frankly, had nothing to tell him on that mark.
London conference venues 
Will Truman 
Patrick Cahalan 
Cornelius 
wardsmith 
Tod Kelly 
Tom Van Dyke 
Murali 
Borat: “I do a picture, only small, of the Tishnik Masacre. Where many Uzbeks…crushed!”
Kindly Gray Hippie: “How did you feel when you drew this?”
Borat: “Very proud!”.
KGH: “I’m just listening with sadness…a little sadness for your people…?”
Borat: “Yes…no, it is not sad. It is us who do the kill!”
When in doubt,
{ 26 comments }
That was good stuff from Andrew. It would be interesting for the posters to offer criticisms of their own theories. It is to easy to just bloviate about how your side is correct.
As an openly admitted liberal I would say liberals could learn a bit from libertarian economic arguments about things like regulatory capture. Some liberals are hostile to market’s and the profit motive as a solution to social problems. Many lib’s are to quick to want government solutions to various social problems. L’s could benefit from trying to think about the unintended consequences of their policies. L’s haven’t often wanted to spend the time to sell policies to people who disagree. To many Dem’s are invested in the belief in American Exceptionalism that infects our foreign policy. To many Dem’s have become beholden to the same ginormous bags of corporate money that the R’s are.
Hugs all around
Nice work, Greg. I think this was a valuable response that caught the spirit of the post. Thanks for it.
I’d nominate Andrew for President, but there is this persistent conspiracy out there that he was really born in the UK…
I admire his admission that he’s become open to statism, but I’d like to hear his reasons for justifying such an openness. This focus on personality, and on how open-minded a person has become tells me nothing about the validity of their beliefs. Many times, people like Sullivan change their beliefs for reasons of popularity and acceptance in their chosen field rather than principle.
Sully doesn’t have a track record of supporting whatever is popular; indeed he frequently goes against the grain, on both the right and the left.
Besides. There’s nothing wrong with a little statism; and Sullivan has never been a hard-core big-L Libertarian that I’m aware of (the only political faction which would regard “statism” as an issue).
He certainly has a little-l libertarian streak, as do many of us here, I suspect, but you seem to be suggesting he’s betrayed a cause that I don’t think he’s ever sworn allegiance to.
La Rittelmayer was correct about the TAS/TOG/DD axis, clearly. Irksome to see yet another article about the man here, but at least this one had the decency to introduce some graphs to break up the gushing (today was a good day for graphs on TOG).
We loves us some graphs. Almost as much as we loves us some Atlantic and American Scene bloggers.
No, I simply said I’d like to hear his jsutification foe changing his mind. To be controversial against the worst of both sides is not all that brave and makes you popular with the mainstream of both.
Sullivan has already answered that question–he’s more interested in what (he thinks) works than he is in ideology or partisanship; to him, conservatism is a disposition, not an ideology. He sees the present state of affairs (on issues like health care; to name one economic issue where he is visibly bucking libertarian priniple) as flawed, thus calls for change. (He also cautions against the approach of his homeland; and probably speaks more eloquently than most Yankees on the merits and pitfalls of the British NHS, having experienced it firsthand).
Now granted, opposing extremists and nutjobs doesn’t require a great deal of moral courage. (At least when they are not in power). You may find the answer he gives unsatisfactory, but there it is.
The above, of course, is a generic answer–if you wish to enquire about mind-changes on specific issues, you’ll have to ask Sullivan himself, or go read his writings.
justification, for
Sullivan’s respone to Welch would is awesome. Except to the extent that he did not actually respond.
Which is… the entire extent.
He simply did not respond to the critique. Like him or hate him, he did not respond.
The critique seems to be that Sullivan doesn’t fit nicely into one of the several little boxes which political actors (including commentators and activists) are pigeonholed in.
Which needs no defense, as it’s entirely correct.
The real question is–so what?
Part of the problem with the intense factionalism of US politics is that you’re expected to pick a team, and stay loyal thereto; independent thought or refusal to do so is frequently equated with cowardice or treachery. Sullivan doesn’t fit nicely into any of the boxes in US politics. His beliefs do mesh nicely with the Tory party of his homeland; a group which is centrist, by US standards, on economic matters, and increasingly libertarian on social ones; but his doesn’t mesh well with the current state of either major US party.
But too many commentators–right and left, and Welch seems to be making the error here–seem to demand that Sullivan “pick a team” already. Too many seem to have a problem with the notion that a respected commentator might advocate “liberal” policies in one blog posting and “conservative” in the next; in particular Welch seems to complaining that despite advocating a liberal POV on an issue; Sullivan isn’t “liberal enough”. Again, I say, “so what”?
I agree with Sullivan a lot more than I agree with most public commentators, but I can’t stand him. It’s not that he once believed A but now believes B, but rather it’s that he once believed A and believed that everybody that adhered to B was a morally repugnant hypocrite/traitor/extremist… and now that he ascribes to B believes that people that support A support morally repugnant hypocrites/traitors/extremists.
When y0u agree with someone 90% of the time, but on that other 10% he expresses his view that you are a pawn/tool of fascists… I really stop caring whether I agree with him or not.
Additionally, when he believed A, it was in good faith and those who believed B when he believed A were somehow malicious (or, at least, wrong) but as he evolved to B, he did so in good faith and the people who believed B before he did weren’t right to have done so when they did so.
That said, the Pet Shop Boys are pretty good. “What Have I Done To Deserve This” holds up stronger today than when it came out.
I think Scott is spot on in his analysis of Sullivan, even while I am dramatically at variance with Scott about the particulars of Sullivan’s excesses and the ultimate consequences of his changeableness. Those who both like him and don’t come from every possible political direction, and do so for widely varying complexes of reasons. What does that tell us? It may help account for his popularity, but I think it also helps identify a fundamental weakness. I’d say responses to Sullivan are sort of like a Rorschach that is descriptive and predictive of nothing. In part, I think, it’s because the core beliefs Sullivan identifies are so limited in scope (despite my agreement with Scott that practical responsiveness to circumstance needs to be more highly valued against theory) and that he has these emotional-obsessive tendencies that we all see. He’s a writer and blogger, and not a policy maker or government leader, and so we look to him or anyone else in that category more for the quality (and honesty, as Scott says) of his ruminations and not necessarily for decisiveness or the quality of his decision making. Yet I think it’s fair to want someone to whose thinking on critical issues we might devote much time to be reliable (if imperfect) in his judgment – and I think Sullivan has increasingly demonstrated over time that he is not.
Sullivan, honest? Maybe to some people whose intellectual cowardice finds its validation in Sullivan’s gobblygook.
Example #1: 180 degree turn on Iraq. Yes, people have the right to change their opinions, etc etc. But in Sullivan’s case, it was not because of any new information (or whatever) but because the war was going badly and the majority was also changing its opinions. The rationale he posted for supporting the invasion in 2003 has never been refuted–including the WMDs. Sullivan’s later opposition was based on hindsight–the antihistorical attitude that “if I had known then what I know now,” plus the overwhelming desire to be on the hip side of the debate.
Example #2: his Palin obsssesion. How can this ever be called “honest?”
Example #3: his cheerleading for Obama. I defy anyone to read his Jan Atlantic panegyric to Obama and come up with any reasons at all for supporting Obama that are not about Sullivan’s feelings–what he calls Obama’s “face.”
Example #4: His support of the anti Semitic Walt/Meersheimer “thesis” on Jew-control over the US government.
Examploe #5: His condemnations of “christianists.” What does the word even mean? How can an open Catholic get the nerve to condemn other Christians for their beliefs? Doesn’t Sullivan believe that some god was born as son of god two thousand years ago to redeem the world (let alone the fact that the world remains stubbornly unredeemed)? Doesn’t he believe that this god had a miraculous “virgin” birth? Doesn’t he believe that this god was killed and later resurrected?
After considering only these most basic Catholic beliefs, how in the world can Sullivan get the gall to criticize anyone else’s crazy religious beliefs?
The point is, Sullivan is a disgrace to the human race. His cowardice is obvious. His opinions are shaped by whatever seems hip to him at the time, not by any independent analysis or observation. People read him and admire him only because he gives their own flag-in-the-wind wafflings a pseudo-intellectual backdrop.
“How can an open Catholic get the nerve to condemn other Christians for their beliefs?”
Oh, I don’t know, perhaps Sullivan got that crazy notion by reading some history of his church and more generally the animosity, worse than name-calling, among the Abrahamic traditions. That way lies madness.
“When *I* call you a name, I’m merely calling someone a name. People like you, however, have been killing, nay, *BUTCHERING* people like me for centuries.”
See what I did there, you stupid fuck?
Hey, I’m just engaging in namecalling.
People like you, however, have murdered people like me.
(For the record, the “you stupid fuck” was intended to be rhetorical excess that would elicit the response of “hey, what the hell? What did I ever do to you?” in a similar manner that most folks would feel when they see “Christianist” or any other “You People” term used by Sully (or anybody, for that matter).)
Are you referring to the centuries of persecution by Christians of other Christians–not to mention of Jews?
If so, that would explain Sullivan’s hyper sanctimony. He’s just being a good Catholic, according to you–if I’m reading you correctly. This would also explain his fanatical following–see Scott Payne, above. Holier-than-thou loves being validated by Holiest-than-thou. But doesn’t this contradict his hyper-hip persona? Who ever wants a latter-day Savonarola to be calling the ethical shots. Well… it’s a rhetorical question. Latter-day Savonarolas are just what most people are searching for. This helps them to reduce the unwanted ambiguity in the world and to be more comfortable with their own beliefs. Otherwise, how to explain Sullivan’s popularity on the Internet?
Roque, I’m not particularly religious, but thanks anyhow for the offering.
I’m pointing out that Sullivan follows a well trod path of of religious intolerance, one for the other. Name-calling is the least offensive manifestations of this intolerance.
When Sullivan uses “christianist” to diminish his opponent he is in no way exploring virgin territory.
Your question, “How can an open Catholic…,” is easily answered. It happens all the time.
That’s what I thought you meant. We agree.
However, with all due respect, when you say that this intolerance “happens all the time” you’re begging the question. The question is how people (like Sullivan) can maintain an image of “progressive open-mindedness” while displaying such open intolerance–to the point of holding such intolerance up as an emblem of “progressive open-mindedness.”
Sullivan is famously intolerant of born-again Protestants. He has added the Walt/Meersheimer version of Jew-hatred after the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Obviously, both these forms of intolerance/hatred are correct from the progressive/leftist point of view.
How can a believing Catholic get away with it, though? How can he imagine that his Catholic beliefs are somehow more valid than the rest?
Most importantly, how can Sullivan keep his readership with such evident hypocricy etc etc? It’s a mystery to me. I suppose the only explanation would reference Wm Burroughs ‘s famous description of a fancy NYC restaurant: it gradually degenerated until it was serving camel piss to its select clients, who were afraid to complain or stop going because it was…a fancy NYC restaurant.
Would this mean that Sullivan’s hip image protects him because his readers’ will to be hip blinds them to the retrograde intolerance on display on every page?
This discussion is exemplifying my earlier point about Sullivan – lots of people unhappy with him on widely divergent scores. I have pretty much stopped reading him, yet I’ll defend his use of Christianist, as I will the use of Islamist, and the use of any similar term for representatives of other religions if they fit the definition.
What is the difference between classifying and name calling? Very big, in fact, unless, sometimes the classification may reach too close to home, as in one’s being, perhaps Christian or Muslim, and not enjoying the proximity.
A Christianist, like an Islamist, is not one who lives in the theological traditions of Christianity or Islam, but one who seeks to impose in the secular sphere (effectively denying the propriety of a secular sphere) through political means, or even force of arms, those theological traditions, or even only their consequences for everyday life, on the general society.
The words here are mine, but that this is a category about which Sullivan has been quite clear in the designation should be indisputable by any who have read him. True, he doesn’t like them. Neither do I. But that doesn’t constitute name calling. He is designating a class of religious/political actor, and the class does exist.
I agree that “Christianist” is a (potentially) useful label as you’ve defined it, but I don’t think Sullivan has been all that consistent in its usage — see here, e.g.
To follow up on kenB’s remark, this is from the comments at the link he posts:
This was in response to this post by Sullivan:
The following was the inflamatory comment the “Kentucky pastor” made that got Sullivan into a hyper-moralistic tizzy:
With this background, consider kenB’s definition of “Christianist:”
Now then, first of all, Sullivan claims that the “Kentucky pastor” lacks any basis in the Gospels (“I’m not sure what this has to do with the message of the Gospels”) and then shows that “Christianists” also favor torture, which would explain the guns-in-church comment by the following chain of thought (I suppose): “Christianists,” of all people, must exemplify the Gospels in every utterance and if these people “favor torture” then nothing is forbidden to them.
But–more to the point here–the “Kentucky pastor” was not seeking to impose anything on anyone, let alone his religious beliefs on an unwilling nation. His remarks are simply uncontroversial reflexions on the founding of the US. The belief in god goes without saying and the “belief in firearms” is set down in the Second Amendment, whether one shares this belief or not.
This example only relates to Sullivan’s use of the term, “Christianist” in his so-called political analysis. On just about every other point, his so-called ideas are just as easily debunked. On all counts, this example shows intellectual dishonesty and above all open pandering to the urban elite–who will read Sullivan’s post, give a knowing chuckle, and move on. These two elements–dishonesty and pandering to the urban elite–are what characterize Sullivan’s so-called thought. He makes a good living off it, so it’s just petty of me to begrudge him it. It’s nice work if you can get it. But I don’t have to respect him for it and I don’t have to follow his herd of admirers.
Comments on this entry are closed.