I think Andrew Sullivan’s secret is that he wishes he were Christopher Hitchens. But Hitchens is smarter than Sullivan—the former is anti-religious, the latter Catholic, of all things; the former chooses targets on their merits (Kissinger, Mother Theresa, Clinton, Iraq), the latter chooses targets according to party line (Clinton, Iraq, Krugman, The New York Times); the former writes a book about George Orwell in which he observes that Orwell is all things to all people, the latter obligingly sees all sorts of things in Orwell:
One key shift toward totalitarianism in the novel comes when the old hymn “Beasts of England” gets replaced by Napoleon (the chief pig and Stalin figure) to a more generic song praising “Animal Farm.” Orwell’s point, I think, is that patriotism is, for all its faults, far more humane and progressive than its opposite. Today’s left would do well to remember that, I think.
So let me get that straight–Stalin was not a patriot? And what is the opposite of patriotism anyway? Buying Japanese cars? Going on holiday in France? And aren’t Saddam Hussein’s bodyguards true patriots? Should we perhaps reinstate that verse in the German national anthem? Hitchens, of course, has a more nuanced apologia for the hard line on Iraq, one that steers well clear of tests for patriotism and instead homes in on the concept of the West’s role being that of choosing the lesser evil. But there is more Orwell fun from Sullivan:
I was also struck by the sense that the apotheosis of Animal Farm makes it no worse than its human-run neighbors. Orwell’s distrust of capitalism was as intense as his loathing of Stalinism. I think he was wrong there – and guilty of moral equivalence. But I also think that it does no justice to him, as Hitchens argues, to ignore this and co-opt him for the right – even the neo-liberal right of today.
So Krugman doesn’t stand a chance, if even Orwell’s cautious approach to a received wisdom is painted with the broad brush of partisanship. Question the Catholic Church’s excesses, as Sullivan allows himself, and that is a moral duty; but question capitalism’s excesses, and that is a moral flaw.
At the risk of starting a whole new tangent, it’s a funny thing, this predilection among the conservative religious in America to equate capitalism with morality. Jesus was if anything the opposite of capitalist–indeed, the way in which the Old Testament God interfered with the affairs of us humans is as far away from laissez-faire as you can get, and a darn good blue-print for enlightened despotism.
[Fri, Oct 25 2002 – 10:44] Matthew (www) (email) why both hitchens AND sullivan are gods:
http://capitalinflux.blogspot.com/2002_10_01_capitalinflux_archive.html#85601104
[Fri, Oct 25 2002 – 11:54] Charles Kenny (www) (email) Not having a copy of Colbert’s complete works to hand, I can only say this with a 99.9% degree of certainty, but I think you’re completely missing the point, Stefan.
Laissez-faire was about the affairs of man. Not Colbert, Smith nor Condorcet suggested that acts of God (plagues of locusts, as it might be) must be legislated against in order to ensure the proper functioning of the free market.
And the thing about pretty much all texts including the Bible, as you would know if you had ever bothered to read any of it in anything but a pubescent desire to be a rebel by (oh my, how brave) saying rude things about religion, is that it can be interpreted differently by different poeple. The ‘render unto Caesar’ passage, for example, has been used by pretty much every stripe of religious political thinker to support their point.
And “Jesus was if anything the opposite of capitalist–indeed, the way in which the Old Testament God…” What is the ‘indeed’ doing there? The writing on this site is going way downhill, must be the impact of speaking all that Swedish.
[Fri, Oct 25 2002 – 11:57] Charles Kenny (www) (email) And another thing, the site you point to argues that Jesus may have been rich, not that he was a capitalist. Duh.
[Fri, Oct 25 2002 – 14:26] Matthew (www) (email) does anyone really understand what stefan’s banging out about, other than an incohate desire to remind people that he’s filled with more religious bigotry in his athiesm than most religious bigots are in their, err, religious bigotry?
[Fri, Oct 25 2002 – 14:34] Matthew (www) (email) also, it’s my understanding that hitchens has a problem with organized religion, not religiosity per se. last night, at the hitch/sull orwell chat, he approvingly noted that orwell was a protestant athiest.
[Fri, Oct 25 2002 – 19:17] Stefan (email) Normally I would not deign to stoop to right the utterances of someone who manages to misspell ‘inchoate’, and ‘atheist’ twice, but this is easy pickings. I will let Hitchens answer Matthew’s claim he is only against organized religion:
Bailey Smith observed that “God Almighty does not hear the prayers of a Jew.” This is the only instance known to me of an anti-Semitic remark having a basis in fact. After all, there is no such person as God Almighty and thus all prayer by all denominations has the same moral effect as aerobic dancing, if not less.
The passage has the added advantage of being concise, which is more than what one could say about several recent articles appearing under said complainant’s byline.
[Sat, Oct 26 2002 – 20:47] Matthew (email) oh, stop trying to be like eurof, it doesn’t suit you.
[Sun, Oct 27 2002 – 08:50] Manuel The opposite of Patriotism? Mel Gibson driving a Lexus through Gaza Strip eating a Plop candybar and screaming: “Nu har du skitit i det bl¨ sk¨pet!”. And for the record, Uncle Joe was not a patriot. He was a meglomaniacal sick fuck.
[Mon, Oct 28 2002 – 11:47] eurof (email) I’m with Manuel, and am impressed he has learned Swedish. I think Stalin was a bit odd, to say the least. If I was patriotic I would not want to kill 30m of my fellow country people, because I would like them. Maybe I would if I was psychopathic. Maybe he was patriotic to Georgia, but not so much to Russia. Anyway, Commies aren’t supposed to be patriotic.
[Mon, Oct 28 2002 – 11:57] Jezza Commies probably aren’t meant to kill 30 million of their own countrymen either, but Stalin kind of was patriotic – a by-product of his factional war with Trotsky: ‘war communism’ versus ‘one country’.
[Mon, Oct 28 2002 – 16:11] Charles Kenny (www) (email) I’m not sure a covenient ideological cover for sticking an ice pick in your main competition for the top spot counts as true patriotism. Nor all the stuff about fighting for Mother Russia as he sent half-starved barefoot peasants off to fight the Germans with pitch-forks. And that he happily diverted food supplies away from Georgia in during the civil war to starve the White Russians there suggests he was an equal-opportunity evil bastard. I’d say he saw himself more like a Tsar, people owed him authority because he was a supreme being, not because of what he did (or didn’t) do to further the nation or the proletarian cause. What does A. Bullock have to say about this? Never got around to reading the book because I was afraid I might be asked to spell the title afterwards.
[Tue, Oct 29 2002 – 05:59] Jezza Is patriotism ever anything more than a convenient ideological cover for those politicians who self consciously use it? Whatever Stalin was, surely his patriotism can only be gauged from his effect on Russians. My suspicion is that if you weren’t one of the 30 million butchered (clearly their thoughts on this are irrelevant as they ceased to exist), and if you were enjoying a moment’s respite from being blind drunk on cheap car fuel/freezing/starving/terrified of disappearing from the picture, it probably gave some dismal melancholic kick to think that despite living in a country that could make you feel so shit, you still had a leader who could put the shit up the rest of the world.
[Tue, Oct 29 2002 – 08:09] eurof (email) Commies are SUPPOSED to kill a lot of their own people Jeremy. When you win an argument with them they always think “well he’ll be first up against the wall when the revolution comes”. It always happens soon after the revolution; you’ve got to get the rich or well-to-do out of the way first before you build the workers paradise, and many of them won’t be re-educated or leave the country nicely. Every single communist regime i can think of has killed people after coming to power. The tweed-jacketed-bearded leftie lot tend to forget this.
OK, maybe most didn’t notch up 30m.
[Tue, Oct 29 2002 – 08:43] Jezza Communists are not supposed to kill their own people any more than free marketeers are supposed to bolster statist subsidy systems. the fact that it happens doesn’t mean its meant to happen. ‘Workers of the world unite and kill your fellow countrymen’ – not. Plus you’ve lost this argument and I’m not a commie but I still think you’ll be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
[Tue, Oct 29 2002 – 09:03] eurof (email) Perhaps the real Commie slogan should be “Workers of the world unite and kill and otherwise get your own back on the fellow countrymen who recently employed you, but don’t worry we’ll give it a veneer of legitimacy, and the advantage for you is you can dream that you’ll all get a ride in their posh cars from time to time, but of course you wont, we, your new apparitchik masters will do all that fun stuff and we’ll eventually end up killing you if you complain or try and leave or just maybe because we’ll need scapegoats because it will all begin to go wrong anyway and then you’ll want your old bosses back but oh dear you killed them ha ha ha.”
Whether it’s meant to happen or not is irrelevant, it’s just what tends to happen.
[Wed, Oct 30 2002 – 09:41] Ayse (email) An irrelevant comment but didn’t know where else to post it. Andrew Sullivan is so full of crap. Please take a look at his article entitled “The British Invasion: Trash Pickup” where he is talking about “how British culture is ruining America”. It might have bothered me less (maybe) had I not only last week watched the UK Weakest Link where all the contestants were Americans. The answers were beyond belief, somebody thought WW2 started in 1914 (a hot shot VP at in investment banking), another thought the British PM lived in the Buckingham Palace (she had been living in England for the last 14 years, married to a Brit). Even Ms. Robinson or whatever her name is began to forget acting mean, stone-faced but expressed astonishment and pity at the sheer ignorance. Wish I had recorded it, hilarious, sad, really ruined.
[Wed, Oct 30 2002 – 09:43] Ayse (email) An irrelevant comment but didn’t know where else to post it. Andrew Sullivan is so full of crap. Please take a look at his article entitled “The British Invasion: Trash Pickup” where he is talking about “how British culture is ruining America”. It might have bothered me less (maybe) had I not only last week watched the UK Weakest Link where all the contestants were Americans. The answers were beyond belief, somebody thought WW2 started in 1914 (a hot shot VP at in investment banking), another thought the British PM lived in the Buckingham Palace (she had been living in England for the last 14 years, married to a Brit). Even Ms. Robinson or whatever her name is began to forget acting mean, stone-faced but expressed astonishment and pity at the sheer ignorance. Wish I had recorded it, hilarious, sad, really ruined.
[Wed, Oct 30 2002 – 09:44] Ayse (email) sorrrrry (2x)
[Wed, Oct 30 2002 – 11:59] eurof (email) Yes, Ayse, I think this Sullivan is full of crap, too. But this lot writing on the blog seem to hold him up as some guy who needs to be rebutted/supported whenever he writes anything. I don’t understand it myself. what’s with these guys?? Have they no life?
[Wed, Oct 30 2002 – 19:51] Matthew (email) no
[Thu, Oct 31 2002 – 02:13] Ayse (email) have any of you met him (sullivan)?
[Thu, Oct 31 2002 – 09:03] Matthew (www) (email) err, no. emailed with. listened to. but met, no.
[Thu, Oct 31 2002 – 15:19] Ayse (email) how old?
[Thu, Oct 31 2002 – 22:05] Matthew (email) late 30-something? maybe.
[Fri, Nov 01 2002 – 09:54] Matthew (www) (email) 38, to be precise