Addressing the “Sullivan Group Think” Meme
I have been an out-of-the-closet fan of Andrew Sullivan from the first semi-coherent note I posted on Facebook over a year ago that launched my foray into blogging. It was Sullivan’s often cited long-form essay on Barack Obama that simultaneously caused me to get off the fence in regards to Obama v. Clinton, develop an interest in expressing myself in political discourse, and take an immediate interest in how Sullivan was doing the same. Often not present in quite the same way when one reads his blogging output, what blew me away in the essay was the interesting and off-the-beaten-path lines of thought that ran through the article, the thoughtful consideration that was offered, and, more prominently on display in his blogging, the intense personal narrative that sought to transcend an article simply about a politician, and provide an account of a man. Following on the heels of my skeptical break with political activism, Sullivan’s was the first writing I had encountered in a while that moved me to action (both mental and physical) on so many different levels.
So I’m disinclined to place much stock in those folks who feel like epitheting via Andrew’s name is a damning criticism of anyone’s writing or thought process, anymore than I am inclined to place much stock in those folks who do the same with, say, Rush Limbaugh’s name. Look, the fact of the matter is that it is a rare (perhaps non-existent) human being who isn’t influenced by someone’s body of work and thought, and the beauty of our modern polities is that we have free rein to decide for ourselves who it is that we choose to be influenced by. The “group think” meme seems to assume that those of us who respect and even — dare I say it? — admire Andrew Sullivan, do so without any speck of criticism for what Andrew says or how he says it. Of course, that simply isn’t true of 99% of the cases, and it certainly isn’t true of this site, where as much criticism gets layed at Andrew’s feet as does praise.
To be honest, there is much left wanting in Andrew’s blogging that often provides those of us who are fans with ample reason to cringe and puff our cheeks in frustration. It is true that Andrew Sullivan can be in turns shrill, erratic, abusive and emotional when it comes to addressing any number of different topics. Andrew’s treatment of Sarah Palin during the election was widely condemned, even among many of his fans — and, coincidentally, by his own assistant Patrick Appel (who, double coincidentally, premised his post on writing by League friend Will Collins) — as beyond the pale. Andrew’s pervasive use of the term “Christianist” is a constant source of irritation for many of his supporters, as we shout over and over again that the term is so hyper-generalized as to be of little value. And those are just two of the more prominent areas of disagreement. But, as I have said before, when Andrew is on he’s on and there are few that offer the kind of quality and unique analysis that he can.
That said, I think there is another strong reason to hold Andrew Sullivan up as an exemplary blogger, and that is the kind of open and vulnerable honesty he displays in posts like this one of last week. Consider how many times you’ve seen a “professional blogger” write something like,
In the last decade, I realize that many of my most cherished institutions have failed – and failed in ways that are not trivial.
Followed by,
Maybe this is adulthood finally arriving a little late: the knowledge that everything is flawed and you just need to get on with it. But a church perpetrating the rape and abuse of children through the power of its moral authority is not a flaw; it’s a self-refutation. A movement betraying its core principles in office and then parading as a parody of purists is a form of anti-conservatism as I understand it. And a democratic country using torture to procure intelligence it can use to justify more torture, and prosecuting a war that never ends against an enemy that can never surrender: this, whatever else it is, is not America as its founders saw it. Again, it is a kind of self-refutation.
Where to go? What to do? You read me flounder every day; and you can find many less conflicted bloggers to read. Maybe I should take a break and live a less examined life for a while. Or maybe I should do what I am still doing: trying to make sense of where I belong, stay praying in a church that has sealed itself off from modernity, cling to a conservatism that begins to feel like a form of solipsism, hang on in the hope that America can reform itself and repair the world a little. I think, in fact, that this is obviously the right and only serious choice. Life is always a temporary and losing battle, an engagement with the deadliness of doing. It just feels deadlier than usual in these past few years of brutally unsentimental education.
Perhaps I’m just poorly read, but that kind of open admission about the ways in which one has been wrong seems to be the exception, not the rule in political discourse. And not only does Sullivan admit to having been fundamentally wrong about things in the past, but he also actively seeks to redress those wrongs in meaningful ways. In that regard, Andrew Sullivan commends a great deal of my respect; as the saying goes, “It takes a big man to admit when he’s wrong.” In some senses it takes an even bigger man (or woman, as the case may be) to try to do something meaningful to address those wrongs. That Andrew Sullivan goes about his penance in such a public fashion is pricelessly valuable in my eyes.
Much of the trouble we get ourselves into politically and otherwise seems so often to be based on our inability to admit when we’re wrong — or even fathom a world in which that is possible. My long standing skepticism about ideological empire building and the intellectual indecencies that it demands is well documented on this site, but one needn’t look to my ramblings for proof. The last eight years of Bush-Cheney certitude provide ample evidence about the damning effects of the failure to ask hard questions, both on the part of the media and of one’s self. We are ultimately stronger and better equipped to do whatever it is that we seek to do if we embrace external dissent with both arms and cultivate internal dissent as a modus operandi. The first is something that wise leaders are often adept at accomplishing, though wise leaders are ultimately few and far between. But the second kind of dissent is a practice to which our political system seems openly and aggressively opposed, lest we consent to association with a certain summer foot wear.
There are many things that online media, blogging in particular, cannot do which print media has built and industry providing, as Freddie notes in his most recent post. But I think one thing that online media, and blogging in particular, is exceptionally capable of doing given its immediacy and flexibility, is give voice to this kind of open dissent and questioning of one’s self, willingness to admit to the wrongs we have committed, and seeks meaningful ways to right those wrongs. In short, I think that the seeming diminutive stature of online writing and journalism may well offer the best avenue to cultivating a requisite humility in our discourse to render it both more measured and better considered.
In this regard, my own feeling is that Andrew Sullivan, with his long-standing straddling of both mediums, offers us a valuable demonstration of just such honesty in writing, and in that regard stands as a potentially prominent, albeit thoroughly imperfect, role model as we make our way forward.
But what the hell do I know, I’m just a worker bee in the hive mind of Sullivan, right?
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- Erik:Thanks for the plug!...
- Really interesting articl...
- Trumwill, I clearly state...
- I read Mysterium by Rober...
- Somewhere in my library i...
- Regarding: "This is a goo...
- I should add that there a...
- Presumed innocence is for...
- As a diehard Dick fan, I ...
- I'd recommend checking ou...
-
51 comments
Yeah, whether one agrees with him or not, how Andrew blogs is worth emulating. He can be absolutely brilliant and absolutely infuriating—and both in the same day, or hour—but he’s everything a blogger ought to want to be: ready to argue, respectful in defeat, and not humble in the sense of the word as we usually use it, but in the sense that he gracefully acknowledges his frequent lack of humility. He keeps it interesting. And although he likes to be right, for sure, he’d rather get to the truth, even more.
Anyway, I don’t want to sound like I’m fellating the man; he drives me nuts sometimes. But one could do a lot worse than to be an Andrew Sullivan wannabe.
Well said.
Nihilist.
“Yeah, whether one agrees with him or not, how Andrew blogs is worth emulating”
I really think just the opposite. I think he is shrill, embarrassing, and hyperbolic, and that’s hardly the model bloggers I like (e.g. Larison, Douthat, Yglesias, or people here) blog. I find his use of the term Christianist deeply offensive; a sort of bigotry which consists of an a priori refusal to consider alternative points of view. I think his denunciations of everything he used to believe are just as self-serving and driven by the zeitgeist as his previous rantings were.
I think this is largely a matter of one’s beliefs. I’m Catholic, was never in favor of Iraq, and am baffled by his shallow and contemptuous disregard for ‘Christianists’ like the Pope. I didn’t like him when he was cheerleading for the invasion, and I don’t like him now that he’s fallen in love with Barack Obama.
That said, I think ‘group think’ allegations are unfair. People read Sullivan because they like him, and they echo him because they agree with him.
@john henry: Sorry, I should have clarified: By how, I didn’t mean emulate his tone or writing style or ideas. I meant things like his giving front-page space every day to those who disagree with him. And I dunno—whenever someone changes their mind, you can label it convenient and self-serving, but sometimes it really is just that they’ve changed their mind. He strikes me as genuine, and another aspect of the how that I like is that he uses the blog to hash all these personal opinions out in public. He seems to argue with himself as much as with other writers, and I don’t know about everyone else, but that’s pretty much what I spend a lot of my thinking time doing, too.
(As for Christianist, I didn’t realize so many people had a problem with it. As a Christian, I’m not bothered by it. Far too many Christians put “being a Christian” ahead of, uh, being Christian, in my book, and it doesn’t bother me to use one umbrella term for all of them, any more than most umbrella terms bother me; no matter what the term, you always have to remember it’s a generalization and be wary of the pitfalls thereof.)
“I meant things like his giving front-page space every day to those who disagree with him.”
I agree with you; that’s one area where I wish more bloggers would emulate him, although I think comment sections (not really feasible with his traffic volume) serve that function on many other blogs.
“And I dunno—whenever someone changes their mind, you can label it convenient and self-serving, but sometimes it really is just that they’ve changed their mind. He strikes me as genuine.”
Here I was unclear. I agree he is genuine, but I think it’s intellectually shallow to completely reverse your positions in such a short period of time, and then begin repeatedly denouncing the views you once supported as though they were impossible to sympathize with.
As for ‘christianist,’ in his hands it has so many different meanings, some offensive, some insipid, that he’s left himself some wiggle room. At the same time, I often feel he uses it as a substitute for ‘things I don’t like’ or ‘people I don’t have to argue with because they are the other,’ and whenever I’ve seen it adopted in comment threads around the internet it’s used as a discrediting epithet. I find it offensive, even when I don’t like or disagree with the people he’s using it against.
John-
I’m with you in many respects, but on this point I have to disagree. Sometimes things come in revelations. Sometimes people have cathartic moments and simply have no choice but to change sides and yes, even begin denouncing those that they once agreed with. I don’t think Sullivan does this on many issues, and I think it’s good that he has on those issues like Iraq and Israel. I’ve had similar political/moral awakenings and it gives me compassion for those I now disagree with, but I’m still bound to criticize those who hold views I think need to be critiqued.
Regarding Christianist, yes, I think it’s a silly label and can do little good in the long run or the larger debate.
E.D.,
Fair enough. I think I was judging him on style, rather than substance on that point. I’m also glad he changed his mind on Iraq.
john henry,
Your valid criticisms of Andrew aside for a moment, I think that if you read his blog regularly his shift in perspective on things isn’t all that sudden. Posts like the one I linked to demonstrate that he often publicly anguishes over difficult issues, weighing new evidence with old perspectives, straining over the contradictions, and some times coming to a compromise, others a complete 180.
But the point of this was to acknowledge how valuable it is that Andrew does this kind of intellectual gymnastics out in the open ,whereas others prefer to do so in private. It sets a good example of the kind of difficult consideration that many of our most pressing issues deserve and how useful out-of-the-ideological-box thinking can be. Most importantly, though, I think it invites others to engage in the same kind of open thought process and encourages a more honest and upfront debate.
For all his ills, I give Andrew a lot of credit on that front and think he stands as a shining example, despite his other tarnishes.
If I could point to one thing that I truly dislike about Sullivan, it’s his misogyny. I’ve seen him absolutely lose his mind on Real Time with Bill Maher several times – once, he kept calling Hillary Clinton “Dick Cheney in a pantsuit.” Another time, he lost it on Naomi Klein, putting words in her mouth and accusing her of treason for suggesting that perhaps Milton Friedman did not have the best interests of the poor at heart.
Sullivan has not retracted any of this. He rightly attacks Dick Cheney daily. But is our Secretary of State really “Cheney in a pantsuit”? You can’t find that in his current writing about her.
Same goes for defending the special Ayn Randian Friedmanomics we’ve been subjected to for decades. Sullivan clearly knows the system is broken – but in the presence of a strong woman, he loses his mind.
I don’t know Mark, that seems like some pretty weak sauce yr bringing. Sullivan has a pretty big hate on for both Clintons and has offered both Bill and Hillary a fair amount of abuse. He’s opposed to Klein on ideological grounds and finds her smearing of Friedman in the Shock Doctrine frustrating, as many do. He can be an over the top character, but none of that supports your speculative accusation of misogyny.
Mark:
Just to add a little to what Scott said – Naomi Klein’s thesis and smears of Friedman demand some pretty harsh treatment. The entire premise of her book is based on a quote from Friedman that, read in context, means precisely the opposite of what she claims (to wit, that capitalists seek to use crises to expand capitalism; Friedman’s point was that economic interventionists use crises to implement their pet projects, and that free market capitalists must resist these interventions). Klein’s thesis thus rests on the equivalent of using ellipses to turn “Government should not use a crisis to oppress people” into “Government should . . . use a crisis to oppress people.” That is dishonesty in the extreme, and given the popularity of her book, Klein’s dishonesty should be exposed.
Let’s address the Cheney-Clinton issue first with some Sullivan comments on Cheney:
03/06/07: “Something is rotten in the heart of Washington; and it lies in the vice-president’s office.”
04/01/07: “Yes, we live in a banana republic. It certainly isn’t a country ruled by law. It is ruled by one man and his accomplice.”
3/18/09: “I do think Cheney is as shameless as he was incompetent.”
12/16/08: “Cheney’s open, proud defense of…waterboarding…means he stands vulnerable to war crime prosecutions. Until he is tried, convicted and jailed, the rule of law in this country stands fatally compromised.”
12/21/08: “the vice-president long ago became an enemy to the Constitution and to all it represents.”
12/23/08: “What Cheney lacked in a grip on reality he sadly made up with such bravura certainty and bureaucratic shamelessness that an entire administration went along for eight long years…Prosecute him.”
And on HRC:
11/14/08: “For my part, I think making her secretary of state is an inspired idea.”
08/13/07: “It made me gag. Sorry, she just does it to me”
07/26/07: “There’s not much reason to believe she’d be much less authoritarian in the White House than Bush and Cheney.”
02/04/08: “Clinton [would not] revoke any of the powers – including the power to order torture – that Cheney has given the executive branch. And I don’t trust her.”
05/01/08: “But there is one distinction between Cartman and Clinton. In the end, you feel some love for Cartman. And he makes you laugh, while she merely depresses beyond measure.”
Clearly, Sullivan does not believe that Hillary Clinton is “Dick Cheney in a pantsuit.” He couldn’t advocate for her at State if he believed that for a second. So why did he say it?
And why the “gagging” references? The only other person Sullivan ever refers to in that way is Michelle Malkin, and then only because she made a video for christmas. And the Cartman comparison?
His treatment of Clinton I find unduly harsh; and I assert that his expectations of her are much higher than for a man. I get more than a whiff of misogyny from him, especially when he writes things like: “Maybe there was a particular lesbian bond with Clinton, which may have led some lesbians to pick McCain (they’re susceptible to a little Alaskan boobage as well).”
Lots of other people feel the same way. Among the more reputable, James Kirchick wrote in TNR on 3/25/08: “I can’t help but think that Andrew Sullivan’s loathing of Hillary is predicated upon a deeply-felt misogyny.”
Other than being an equal opportunity Clinton-hater, what’s your evidence that he’s not?
As for Klein, Sullivan lost his mind about ideological issues, not deception in ‘The Shock Doctrine.’ IIRC, Klein claimed that there was a moral hazard on Wall Street…Sullivan begged to differ. I’ll watch the video again and see what’s there.
Mark (not Thompson), response to follow.
Most importantly, though, I think it invites others to engage in the same kind of open thought process and encourages a more honest and upfront debate. For all his ills, I give Andrew a lot of credit on that front and think he stands as a shining example, despite his other tarnishes.
I think this basically comes down to how we weigh the importance of different issues. I agree on certain topics Andrew is admirably open-minded and reflective; on others I think we agree he is anything but. Now that’s true of all writers to a certain extent, particularly bloggers. But in general, we care in varying degrees about a writer’s blind spots based on the importance of the issues to us. Andrew’s worst issues (faith & culture, Iraq, balanced criticism of politicians etc.) tend to be the ones I’m most interested in. You probably have different issues which are important to you, and so it’s easier to overlook the blemishes.
I think the transparency you (rightly, I think) applaud is a double-edged sword; on some issues it makes Andrew really interesting, in others it makes his flaws that much more apparent. In any case, I think we agree in broad outline. I say he’s shrill and sometimes reflective. You say he’s reflective and sometimes shrill. I think we’re both right. We just care about different issues.
So no pistols at dawn?
Aaaaaw….
This is a small complaint regarding John Henry’s first post, but I cannot fathom how you consider Yglesias’s blogging style to be in any way admirable. I have watched him speak on bloggingheads, and, while rather unimpressive, he appears to be nice enough as a person. However, his blogging is repugnant. Over the past several years, he has elevated glibness and snark — the more lamentable traits of the blogging medium that are thankfully going out of style — to an art form. They degrade social commentary and trivialize serious issues. He nevertheless uses them to compensate for his glaring lack of knowledge on a whole host of important issues. Rather than restricting himself to certain pet issues about which he can speak competently (light rail, I guess), he makes authoritative declarations that, while ignorant, appeal to the vanity and biases of his regular readers. His, much more than Sullivan’s, is an example not to be followed.
I’m a daily Andrew Sullivan reader who disagrees with him about 50 percent of the time (I’m politically liberal). Still, I always admire his disciplined thinking/writing, vast knowledge of history, philosophy and politics (who the heck is Oakeshott?), sense of humor, personal vulnerability, and evolved morality. He’s a genius, and, as you say, a big man and priceless. Misogynist? I get the impression he surrounds himself with men so maybe doesn’t have the female perspective much, but misogynist seems unfair. I appreciate “Christianist” and I totally, completely, absolutely support his treatment of Sarah Palin. Why was everyone else so afraid to ask the obvious? Really, what if that ticket had won?
What I love the most about Andrew Sullivan’s blog persona (I’ve never me the person) is his stubbornness. He says today in response to your article, Mr. Payne, that despite all the zapped bits and bytes over his obsessive Palin coverage — he would write it all again, gladly, exactly the same, to save the Republic! Of all of his Blogger’s traits this one is I think his most quaint and enduring one, sorry, I mean endearing one; it reminds me of someone else in the news a lot during Mr. Sullivan’s blogging years, someone also known for his tenacity in the name of saving the Republic, or at least of keeping us safe: George Bush. Readers of The Daily Dish will grow old and die off before either ‘fesses up to having learned anything or had any ’second thoughts’ in their respective zones of Certainty. Sullivan advances a strong case for doubt and uncertainty as integral to any true faith. But one has to have those doubts for oneself; they cannot be countenanced on account of other’s urgings. One must be like Brave Ulysses when the Siren’s sang. On the Palin matter, it is as if Sullivan was channeling Dubya’s steadfastness with his faith-based certainties about his decisions on Iraq, and on Rumsfeld, etc. Sullivan knows that History will prove him right. In fact, it’s already proven him so because, thanks to his Palin screeds, and especially his extra vigilance and suspicion concerning the True Maternity of Trigg, and his insistence that ALL of Palin’s medical records, including her gynecological ones be made public in full before she can qualify, Constitutionally speaking, for the Vice Presidency, we don’t have her or her womb to kick around any more. Other than on this point, plus a few dozen other ones, mostly about political economy, I remain one of Sullivan’s biggest fans. Seriously. I mean that. Snark Generator turned to the Off position: He is a gem of a thinker and writer. He has led the way on questions of gay marriage rights, the anti-torture movement, against the inanities of the Iraq war, and many other big ticket items, while filling his blog with fine, rich, theologically inclined pieces, which borderline religious wobblers such as myself keep turning to with relish. He does for blogging what Sam Johnson did for magazines 260 years ago. These quirks of his are forgiven.
I would agree with Mark on Sullivan coming across as misogynist. The level of hatred he has shown for people like Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton (prior to Obama making her SecState) seems to me fundamentally different in kind from how he treats male politicians.
I can’t put a finger on it, but there is a basic difference in tone.
Furthermore, the way he went after Palin’s family and personal life was and is disgusting, because he’s rumour-mongering with a rumour that has LONG been disproven by pictures of Palin pregnant with Trig. To do what he did is as bad as the smears against McCain in 2000, as bad the the Obama-is-a-Muslim and Obama-birth-certificate rumours, and inexcusable. And it’s typical of him – those he strongly disagrees with, he dehumanizes; this is clearest in his attitude to any opponents of same-sex marriage. Palin, by virtue of being who she is, does not deserve decent human treatment in his eyes. And once he has labelled someone that way, he instinctively interprets anything they say in an intellectual dishonest manner in order to reinforce his chosen conclusions about them. He treated Palin’s statements in the VP debate as anti-gay when she and Biden said the exact same thing: they supported equal civil rights, and didn’t support calling it marriage.
He is prone to drawing conclusions very quickly and interpreting everything in light of those conclusions without thinking of questioning them.
Sullivan oscillates between heroic and loathsome. What he has done with the issue of torture is invaluable: Dana Priest may have done the heavy lifting, but Sully kept the outrage alive. On the other hand, the damage he did by lending his imprimatur to The Bell Curve will never fully be undone (no matter how hard he cheerleads for Obama).
I was amused to discover how excited Sullivan was about the “Obama Effect” — how black students, when reminded of Obama’s success, tend to achieve better test results. When will he take responsibility for the “Bell Curve Effect” — how black students, told that they are mentally inferior by the likes of “scientists” hyped by Sullivan, tend to underachieve?
These days he’s certainly more hero than villain. Much of value that might otherwise die on the web is kept alive via his blog — especially crucial material regarding the previous administration’s war crimes.
So tell me, Ambivalent, was the science in The Bell Curve bad, or do you simply not like what the results appear to say? If the science is bad, that’s one thing, but denouncing truth because it displeases you is rather ignorant.
Also, john henry, if you are a Christian, the term christianist should not offend you. If, however, you are one of those who believe there is nothing wrong with forcing your beliefs upon society, whether by legislative or other means, then you’re merely offended at being called out.
Ack, so many comments, so little time. Wasn’t expecting a link here on Sunday and so don’t have a lot of time to address some great points. Wanted to say thanks for reading and commenting to everyone, though.
And Mark, I owe you a response, which I have coming. Weekend has been kind of hectic.
Excuses, excuses Scott….sheesh… ;-)
Sure, he’s over the top in his Hillary bashing. And you might think he’s overly rough on Palin, but I’d disagree. I mean, c’mon, she was a travesty. She tried to get by on whatever passes for charm in Alaska, even as she demonstrated a stunning lack of command of the most basic of national issues. She was prideful in her ignorance and her demagoguing was just too much.
But to label him a misogynist because he goes after pols he can’t stand just because they’re women is too much.
First, I’d argue that he’s just as vituperative about Cheney, Addington, Yoo, Father Maciel and other male figures who upset him. Hell, he takes the piss out of the new pope all the time.
Second, I’d remind everyone that one of his early political heroes was Margaret Thatcher. He absolutely loves that woman. Now, this may or may not belie poor political judgement, depending on your point of view, but it doesn’t exactly suggest misogyny.
Yeah, it’s really hard to say anything conclusive about the misogyny charge. I agree with Abrxas about Palin—she was such a joke, and such a dangerous joke, that it’s hard for me to respect anyone who didn’t treat her candidacy with unbridled contempt. And Clinton is tough as evidence of misogyny—she just seems to engender (no pun intended) a really visceral dislike on the part of a lot more people than just Andrew Sullivan, both men and women, and she has for a long, long time. Her defenders are always saying that people don’t like her just because she’s a woman, but I personally know so many people of both sexes who’ve never shown themselves to be misogynists but who just do not care for her at all that I can’t help but think it’s just her.
Thanks, Scott – looking forward to it.
Josh/27 – let’s start with Dick Cheney, father of the torture regime. McCain, a guy who was actually tortured, waffled on torture. But Hillary is “Dick Cheney in a pantsuit?”
A serious political commentator shouldn’t go off on someone they ultimately think is an appropriate Secretary of State “just because.” Is irrationality better than misogyny?
Mark: I’m not sure it’s “better,” but it’s certainly less avoidable. I know lots of people who aren’t misogynistic; I don’t know any who are never irrational.
Anyway, better or not, it’s still not misogyny, which was all my previous comment was dealing with.
In response to A. Person: yes, the science is bad. It is not even, in any rigorous sense, science. If you’d like to see it properly dissected, I recommend Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man.
Whether or not you agree with Gould, the crucial matter is this: Sullivan recognizes that intellectual achievement among groups is highly dependent upon how that group perceives itself and is perceived by society at large. (Hence, the Obama Effect.) The Bell Curve, then, is something like a self-fulfilling prophecy: tell kids that they’re going to be stupid, and they will be. Sullivan chose to be by far the loudest prophet, and has much to answer for.
(Note as well that The Bell Curve goes considerably beyond what even the authors would consider scientific inquiry: the policy recommendations, based upon their research, are equally pernicious. Stupid people, we are told, are less inclined towards decency and basic morality, and policy ought to reflect this. I’ve found quite the opposite, in fact: it is highly likely that someone with Downs’ Syndrome will be a much kinder individual than, say, the very brilliant Karl Rove.)
(By the way, I don’t mean to imply in any way that Sullivan is racist — I am quite sure that he isn’t. Simply that, in the spirit of promoting unfettered academic speech, he made a boneheaded and damaging decision as an editor. One that he has yet to acknowledge, much less apologize for.)
(Oh, and make that Down’s, not Downs’ Syndrome.)
Oh, for pete’s sake! When you have nothing else to do but nit pick other bloggers – maybe you should get a night job. Who cares? We come to the web to read opinions: so you tell us not to? Or maybe carefully? Or…. And you call yourself a gentleman, by telling us how you think we should read? Ho, Ho, Ho! This is the first and last time I’m here. *walks away mumbling to self, looking for a glass of holy fire water…*
Aidan, you decry snark yet engage its use, “light rail, I guess.”
Come on, snark is nothing more than lampooning your opponent, a time tested rhetorical device.
Re: Sullivan, he seems very divisive, gotta check him out.
I did not mean to be too flippant with the light rail comment. Yglesias has written a book about foreign policy, although he hasn’t really succeeded in filling out his inchoate “progressive realism” theory. Much of his foreign policy views stem primarily from his base animosity towards the Iraq War (which he initially supported of course) and neoconservative moral posturing. Outside of this, his economic views don’t reflect any real nuanced analysis, and he rarely founds it in anything remotely empirical. Instead, as outlined above, he issues regular authoritative dictats as if his conclusions are self-evident. As for snark, it can certainly be employed in a tactical sense to reflect satirical disgust at a particular subject, but it cannot dominate one’s blog personae without compromising one’s intellectual honesty as a social commentor.
“I did not mean to be too flippant with the light rail comment.”
So, just kinda of snarky, opps, flippant?
Sullivan’s questions about the Trig pregnancy have never been adequately addressed – there are no pictures that “prove” Palin was pregnant, but plenty that cast doubt.
Everybody just assumed that there was no way Sarah Palin would lie about something like that. Why not, when she lied about everything else? The questions are only unseemly if they’re wrong. Despite how easy it would be to prove that, nobody ever has.
Mark, I’m a philosopher by training, so you’ll excuse my insistence that we restart this conversation by defining our terms. You claim that Andrew Sullivan is a misogynist, which by pretty much all accounts means someone who has a hatred of women. That’s a pretty big statement and I think would require a fair amount f evidence on your part to hold up.
So far you haven’t come back with numerous incidences of comments that Andrew has made towards women that indicate a hatred of women, you have focused on two women only: Naomi Klein and Hillary Clinton. So to begin with I don’t think citing two examples where Andrew has an explanation for his rough rhetorical treatment of those women that has nothing to do with their sex/gender comes anywhere close to proving your claim.
In the case of Klein, you yourself said that Andrew “went off” on her because she challenged free-market economics, of which Andrew is an ardent supporter. The basis for his treatment is ideological in nature, not sexual. Further, while I haven’t seen the Bil Maher show you reference, I have listened to the audio a couple of times over and, frankly, Andrew is a bit of a freak the whole way through. I don’t think it has much to do with Klein, that’s just sort of how Andrew is and it’s one of the drawbacks about his style: it can come off as quite shrill and hyberbolic.
As per Clinton, the focus of your argument seems to be that at one point Andrew called her “Cheney in a pant suit” and then switched his tune to call naming her SoS “an inspired idea”. Now, Andrew’s extreme distaste for both Bill and Hillary Clinton is very public and well known, he sees them as opportunistic, power-hungry, unscrupulous, unprincipled, and a blight on the practice of politics. I wouldn’t say that for them myself, but I’m not the object of discussion here.
Now the focus of your argument seems tobe the sudden change of heart that Andrew had on Hillary when it came to SoS, but I rather question the claim that he did have a change of heartat all and I think putting that quote you use in context helps to flesh out what;s going on here.
From the Dish (Nov 14, 2008),
“That’s the buzz. Marc reports that Clinton and Obama met yesterday in Chicago. For my part, I think making her secretary of state is an inspired idea.
Obama has to offer something to Clinton. She’s his main threat now and rightly regards part of his victory her doing. The primaries helped him. Left to fester in the Senate, Clinton will plot against the president if he doesn’t actively seek her support and engagement and “spread the political wealth” of his mandate.
It is a senior enough position not to be fobbed off; it really does take advantage of the Clinton name abroad; it could even put Bill to good use and keep him out of mischief; and Obama has kept telling us that his cabinet model is “Team Of Rivals.” Giving Hillary that kind of position is straight out of Lincoln.
Unlike the vice-presidency, a secretary of state has real constitutionally-designated things to do. From Clinton’s point of view, it would be a natural position from which to run to succeed Obama in 2016 (or to make an inside push to oust him in 2012). The emergence of Max Baucus as the front senator for healthcare seems to me a sign that Obama might have already been signaling this maneuver. If Clinton isn’t the lead player on healthcare, what is she going to do?
So here’s hoping he offers and she accepts. It’s an elegant and shrewd move; both public spirited and yet coldly calculating at the same time. Pure Obama.”
As you can see, Andrew didn’t really have a change of heart when it came to Hillary, he saw the move as politically shrewd by Obama in neutralizing his primary threat amongst Democrats. At best Andrew acknowledged that Bill and Hillary Clinton have a good name abroad and that that good name could be effectively used to Obama and America’s benefit.
But no where does Andrew say, “You know what, I was wrong about Hillary, I went too far and I retract my statements.” And that’s because I don’t believe Andrew has changed his tune on Hillary Clinton, he even mentions the Vice Presidency as a bad place to put her because it’s role is too ill-defined. Now that’s not a direct throw back to Cheney, but the insinuation is certainly there.
So that where’s I stand on your claim, unpersuaded. If you’ve got more (and particularly broader) evidence to offer, I’d be happy to reconsider my stance.
Cheers.
Scott,
I think we have an example today – Sullivan’s treatment of Amanda Marcotte vs his treatment of Peter Thiel. I have no idea who Amanda Marcotte is – an unknown blogger – who responded to Thiel’s statement
“the extension of the franchise to women…[has] rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron” with an incomprehensible attack on libertarians. Sullivan nominated her for one of his Michael Moore Awards, while all he says about Thiel is “not because many of Thiel’s particular views are worth defending…”
Let’s say Sullivan decided that Thiel’s comments were unworthy of comment because they were so patently ridiculous (which is not the impression he gives). Why then single out an unknown writer’s response to Thiel’s comments as “divisive, bitter and intemperate left-wing rhetoric”?
Thiel’s a rich, powerful, gay misogynist. Sullivan could have ignored him or even rebuked him. Instead, he attacked an irrelevant and powerless woman because of her response to Thiel’s comments.
Amanda Marcotte is the person behind Pandagon, I believe.
I believe that her relevancy and power are in dispute, rather than known to be non-existent.
Mark,
Marcotte is hardly powerless. Nor is she unknown. Jaybird’s right, she’s Pandagon. She was hired by the Edwards’ campaign briefly before some controversy took her down.
Theil’s a buffoon, no doubt, but what Marcotte did was take one man’s ass-hattery and use it to slander an entire group. Libertarians may or may not be serious political thinkers, but I dares ay they’re not misogynists.
It was a strange attack and that’s what Sullivan called out.
I’d argue that Sullivan respects her more by taking her head on than you do by seeing her as powerless, irrelevant woman to be treated with kid gloves for fear of hurting her delicate lady-ness.
Just to follow-on with what Abrxas said – Marcotte’s comments went on to portray Thiele’s views as being emblematic of all libertarians and even went so far as to portray libertarians as being pro-war, which is way beyond the pale.
“I’d argue that Sullivan respects her more by taking her head on than you do by seeing her as powerless, irrelevant woman to be treated with kid gloves for fear of hurting her delicate lady-ness.”
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I have no idea where you came up with that.
Peter Thiel is worth $1.2 billion, made some egregious comments about women, had them published by the Cato Institute, and they were then picked up by most major mainstream media outlets in a largely objective sense.
Amanda Marcotte wrote something moronic about libertarians on her blog, the relevance of which, as Jaybird writes, is in dispute. There is no chance anything Amanda Marcotte has to say ever gets picked up by major media outlets.
Attacking her but not him is like saying “I know Joe made a racist comment, but I’m mad at Dave because he was rude when he called Joe out on it.” It’s made all the much worse because Sullivan takes a pass on attacking a well-known rich gay man in favor of attacking at most a minor celebrity. For all his talk of “speaking truth to power,” he doesn’t do it…He doesn’t even say that he disagrees with Thiel.
Is saying “the extension of the franchise to women…[has] rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron” not beyond the pale?
Dave probably shouldn’t have said that Joe was like all white people, hiding his horns under bowler plated with gold mined by oppressed aboriginals.
For the record, Mark, I didn’t put words in your mouth. You described her as powerless and irrelevant.
Sully should have criticized Thiel in stronger terms, but that’s hardly evidence of misogynism. At least to me.
h
“to be treated with kid gloves for fear of hurting her delicate lady-ness.”
Abrxas – clearly I never wrote that.
You can’t deny that Peter Thiel (white billionaire) is far more powerful than Amanda Marcotte (minimally famous for making anti-Catholic remarks in 2007). He wrote an intemperate and divisive opinion piece that was posted on the website of a supposedly-reputable think tank and then picked up by major news outlets in a fairly objective manner. She wrote an intemperate and divisive post on her blog that didn’t get picked up anywhere. So Sullivan nominated her for an award for “intemperate and divisive” writing, but not him.
Sullivan ignored the misogynist comments of a rich white man to attack a woman for her response to those comments. What’s a guy gotta do to prove that he himself is a misogynist these days?
“What’s a guy gotta do to prove that he himself is a misogynist these days?” How about make misogynist comments or engage in behaviors that are clearly misogynist?
Look, Mark, I guess we’re not going to see eye to eye on this. C’est la vie. You’re right, those weren’t your words, that was the conclusion I inferred from your description of Marcotte. I own that.
But here’s where I’m coming from: I’m a life-long liberal; married to a strong woman; have many strong women in my life. Sexism and misogyny matter to me.
I’ve been reading Sullivan since at least 2000 and while I find many points to disagree with him on (economic philosophy, The Bell Curve, Iraq War initially), I find him to be intellectually honest, occasionally provocative, and usually interesting.
He recognized his error in judgement early on, in re: the war and has publicly apologized numerous times. His voice has been strongly and consistently raised against the Bush Admin’s war crimes and torture in general. He’s a strong proponent of legalization.
So, while I find many faults in his thinking on the above-mentioned issues, I appreciate his willingness to confront and reveal his shortcomings. And, in my judgement, having read the guy for so long, misogyny is not one of his shortcomings.
I’ll say it again, Thiel is a tool and Sully should have criticized him more strongly. But Thiel was besides the point of his attack. The point was that Marcotte bludgeoned all Libertarians with the words of one particularly offensive man. That’s an intellectual foul and he called her on it. Having strong libertarian leanings, he’s probably thin skinned about it.
Now, you’re saying (if I’m getting you straight) that he should have focussed his attack on Thiel and I can go along wth. But not having done so does not in and of itself prove he’s a misogynist. I’m sorry it just doesn’t.
And to address another of your beefs, I just don’t buy that he avoided a harsher critique of Thiel because he’s arguably powerful. A guy who’s been vocally hammering Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. for 5 years? He takes on powerful gay interests all the time, the HRC being the biggest example.
I’m not arguing anyone should read or like the guy, but labeling him as a misogynist when he’s not just strikes me as unfair. Well, I finished defending Sullivan, he’s a big boy and do so himself.
Clearly he’s not a misogynist like Peter Thiel; and I’m willing to accept that he merely hates Hillary Clinton, Naomi Klein and Amanda Marcotte for the right reasons. But the Dick Cheney in a pantsuit-lesbian boobage-Michelle Malkin is shrill but Michael Moore is not-I don’t like the woman who attacked Peter Thiel theme will expand every month…And we can see if he still passes the sniff test…
Uhh…Mark, I’m pretty sure he thinks Michael Moore is shrill, seeing as he named his left-wing equivalent of the Malkin Award after him.
“The Malkin Award – named after blogger, Michelle Malkin – is for shrill, hyperbolic, divisive and intemperate right-wing rhetoric. Ann Coulter is ineligible – to give others a chance. ”
“The Moore Award – named after film-maker, Michael Moore – is for divisive, bitter and intemperate left-wing rhetoric.”
Note the difference.
Again, he’s not Peter Thiel, but he does strike me as being biased against women to some extent.