This blog has at times been quite obsessed with the musings of Andrew Sullivan, mainly because if there is one thing which exasperates me it is seemingly smart, articulate people spouting absolute nonsense. Naomi Klein is his left-wing equivalent.This was the case with his defense of the ideas of Pim Fortuyn, another person to which this criticism applies. It was also the case with his early strong push for war with Iraq. But a person can only take so much, and I stopped reading his blog as it evolved into a shrill one-note take on the world. Being predictable is not a good thing for a blog to be. Why bother reading itEspecially if you do not allow comments, which goes against the concept of the blog as dialogue.?
Sullivan does have one feather in his cap. His single-minded pursuit of fellow Republican Trent Lott a few months ago for his on-the-record support for segregation resulted in Lott losing the cherished US Senate majority leadership position. Now, Sullivan has a new target in his sights: Senator Santorum, That name sounds so Star Wars-like. Palpatine, Santorum, Sebulba… Which of these is not like the other?who seems to be for legislating against gay sex. Sullivan, who is gay, may not win this latest round, but not for want of trying.
Which leads me to the original thought in this post (sorry to take so long): Sullivan may have finally solved that dilemma first formulated by Woody Allen all those years ago in his exordium to Annie Hall:
The-the other important joke for me is one that’s, uh, usually attributed to Groucho Marx, but I think it appears originally in Freud’s wit and its relation to the unconscious. And it goes like this-I’m paraphrasing: Uh … “I would never wanna belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member.”
The recipe for happiness, then, is simple: Join a club that would rather not have you as a member. For good measure, Sullivan has joined two: The Catholic Church, which calls homosexuality a sin, and the Republican Party, which believes Santorum is an “inclusive” man, as the President opinedIt’s April 27, and it is snowing outside!.
There is something unusual about a gay person so determined to label himself as not just religious, not just Christian, but Catholic, of all things. The differences between denominations are doctrinal, and the intelligent religious person, surely, will see that these schisms are the work of Man, not God. So join a more tolerant faith, already! But not Sullivan: He has joined a group of people whose tenets are clearly homophobic, and now protests too loudly all the way to communion.
As for his Republicanism, it is even odder, in my mind. He is British, first off, cannot even vote, certainly can’t register to vote and hence has absolutely no use for labeling himself Republican. Why can’t he just be the sum of his beliefs? Is he under the impression that attaching a label to his thoughts confers some kind of prestige? Andrew Sullivan, label whoreLabel whore: “Someone who only wears brand name clothes, with the name of the brand usually placed somewhere for all to see. A walking advertisement for a clothing store or brand.” ?
I believe, despite protests to the contrary, that he truly enjoys his pained crises of conscience. They are entirely of his own making. But perhaps there are signs that enough is enough: This week he said that “it is beginning to make it simply impossible for gay people and their families – or any tolerant person – to vote for the president’s party.” Is he preparing us for a highly public defection?
Don’t count on it. But it may become necessary to read Sullivan again. Not for the quality of the discourse, but as a psychological drama.
I believe that Andrew Sullivan has, actually, become a US citizen, along with Christopher Hitchens.
Yes, I wasn’t sure what his status was, did a search on the web, and the best I could come up with was a self-reference to him being an “opinionated Englishman“. But this was written in 1996. I’ll assume he is British until proven otherwise. He certainly advertises himself as British to all who will listen.
I know for sure that Hitch is not a citizen. Assume the same is true of AS, who, by the way, said on his site this morning that he wasn’t a Republican.
Slightly separately, I’d like to see some evidence that the GOP has more homophobic members than the Dems, or that its policies are ostensibly more homophobic or antithetical to homosexuals. Not sure either party supports gay marriage, for example.
Matthew, you were at the Sully & Hitch show with me at NYU, where I’m sure I heard Hitchens say he had become a US citizen. What makes you so sure that he isn’t?
And of COURSE the GOP is more homophobic than the Democrats. Look at Howard Dean — signed the Vermont civil union statute into law, and then ran for President as a Democrat — can you ever imagine a Republican doing such a thing? Look at Rudy Giuliani, who everybody says could be a GOP presidential candidate, if only he weren’t so gay-friendly. Look at the way the voting split on ENDA: can you FIND a more party-line vote?
You must be European. One who values a position’s nuance, above its correctness. One who believes Muslims have the right to self-determination in Palestine but not in Paris: resentful of Americans for their wealth and power, resentful of popular blogs for their rightful place in the sun. After all an inconsistent position is a sign of genius, isn’t it. Murdering people to protect animal rights makes perfect sense.
Ah yes let’s let a country where Flemish and French still don’t get along settle the world’s problems, that will work. We will show you the moral high ground, after all we haven’t killed Jews for over 50 years now (we’ve moved on to facilitating murder in Rwanda).
Let’s review the boilerplate. Gay guy calls himself conservative and religious; cries foul when the Republicans and Catholics aren’t real happy with his latest tryst. “Mon Ami, can you pull out that old Woody Allen quote – we’ve got ourselves a blog.”
Hey do us all a favour, don’t admit to ignoring some guy’s blog, misunderstanding his position, then proceed to criticize.
Well, on second thought, I take it all back. Do what you want. You Europeans just can’t help yourselves, good thing we’re there to liberate you.
Know about Hitch based on recent conversation with him. And there are plenty of reasons to vote against federal employment law other than your view on the matter at hand. A vote against ENDA doesn’t necessarily make you a homophobe, although I’m willing to admit some who voted against it might be.
Voting against ENDA might not make you a homophobe, Matthew, but it certainly does make you “ostensibly more homophobic or antithetical to homosexuals”, in your words. And as I understand it, Hitch applied to become a US citizen in the wake of 9/11, then changed his mind in “solidarity” with all the other non-US citizens who could be summarily arrested and held without trial etc under Ashcroft’s new laws; I thought he’d changed his mind back again, but I guess not. Not, of course, that it matters in the slightest.