This post is about Andrew Sullivan, so I promise to make it mercifully brief.
Sullivan is a pioneer. He was the first blogger to realize that in the low-knowledge, high-offense Internet age the shortest route to popularity was simultaneous moral outrage and moral dishonesty. I can’t believe you’ve done the thing I know you didn’t do. (See: Bush policy and Abu Ghraib, neoconservatives and wars for Israel).
The man who has designated Barack Obama the first gay president has appointed himself the arbiter of political hyperbole, naturally. He makes his rulings about beyond-the-pale commentary via negative “awards” on his blog. For my last post about Obama’s self-mythologizing and personality-cult efforts Sullivan has nominated me for his “Hugh Hewitt Award.” Hewitt is, of course, a national treasure, but in Sullivanland the award “is given for the most egregious attempts to label Barack Obama as un-American, alien, treasonous, and far out of the mainstream of American life and politics.”
Sullivan objected to my post because I considered Obama’s comical insertion of his name into other presidential biographies and things like his administration’s personalized Mother’s Day cards alongside the self-aggrandizing efforts of Kim Jong Il. In order to make me sound sufficiently loony and nativist, Sullivan pasted one part of my post to another, using an ellipsis in place of five paragraphs which appear in the original. But that’s not what’s most entertaining here.
This is: In a May 9 blog post titled “Obama’s Creepy Emails And Ads,” Sullivan discusses some of the same Obama Mother’s Day cards I discuss. And here is his very own pronouncement on them: “What is this, North Korea?”
Whoops.
Hewitt banded such accurate attacks on Obama, openly claiming that he does not want to see Obama's birth certificate. Hewitt is a RINO who runs from controversy. He also wants to convict George Zimmerman even if he is innocent. It seems Sullivan and Hewitt are two peas in a pod.
What a pleasure it is to read Contentions and especially Abe's commentary. As I commented earlier, we are not treated enough to Abe's writing. n nThere is a sort of pleasure that comes from noting the inconsistencies of our, shall we say, adversaries or contemporaries. When one writer blatantly changes his views, not because of new facts which may dictate a change of heart but because of personal opinion (or sometimes the change is simply to disagree), the satisfaction of calling out such shallow writers is deeply rewarding. I suspect Abe is feeling pretty good now, as well he should. n nMore broadly though, we are witnessing a time of name calling and ever shifting opinion based not on fact, but simply based on feelings. It is as if mathematics claimed 2+2=4 but if you don't like that, well, some people may prefer 2+2 =5. Sure, it's wrong, but if it makes you feel better, what's the harm. And if your favorite professor says so, all the more reason to believe an incorrect statement. n nOf course, saying something doesn't make it so. I expect Contentions will continue to note the inconsistencies of others, continue to stimulate an intellectual debate, and will, if necessary, point out its own mistakes as well. Perhaps if Contentions continues in this vein, Mr. Sullivan may get the hint and improve his own writing and opinions. One can only hope. n
Andrew Sullivan styles himself as conservative. Yeah, he's conservative, until his own ox is being gored, as it were: to wit, gay marriage. Then he becomes a flaming liberal. Charming.