Katherine Harris–A Case of Conservative Huffingtonitis
The two speakers who most impressed me at the Log Cabin Convention in Dallas in 1998 are two individuals whom commenters to this blog often link as one. Back then, Andrew Sullivan and Arianna Huffington struck me as independent voices on the right, bright individuals offering a unique perspective on politics. Today, both are better known for their obsessive hatred of President Bush.
In transforming herself from a thoughtful conservative to darling of the anti-Bush left, Huffington seemed more interested in pleasing the liberals in her Westside (LA) neighborhood than in making serious arguments.
It all begin during the 2000 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination when she was a staunch supporter of John McCain. Probably noticing how some of her neighbors, who had previously shunned her due to her conservative views, started to embrace her when she criticized McCain’s rival, George W. Bush, she realized that attacking the eventual Republican nominee improved her social standing with her West LA peers.
She thus became a Bush critic for social reasons and so defined a condition which I have defined as Huffingtonitis, when one defines his political views and makes public statements in order to win social approval and/or acceptance. Over a year ago, Roger Simon, without naming it, wrote about this phenomenon:
people’s politics, like beauty, is only skin deep (a scary thought, actually). Many people have no real politics at all other than social “self-description.” They hypnotize themselves into sets of beliefs they feel are in keeping with club or team membership.
And so Arianna hypnotized herself to keep up with the attitudes of her wealthy neighbors. It’s not just liberals who are can be so hypnotized. Roger wrote that “All sides are ever open to this kind of emotionally stunted behavior.“
Katherine Harris, once a respected Florida politician elected to statewide office in 1998, seems to have become intoxicated by the praise she won in conservative circles over “her role overseeing the 2000 presidential recount as Florida’s secretary of state.” While she faced withering criticism from the Left, conservatives, notably Sean Hannity, fawned all over her. Delighted in such attention, she seemed to become increasingly detached from reality and starting making outlandish statements (and engaged in increasingly odd behavior) believing it might keep her in the limelight and draw accolades from her admirers on the right.
But, while Huffington’s statements (combined with her media savvy) helped her cement her position on the Left, Harris’s statements cost her the favor of her one-time conservative supporters. The Florida GOP can’t support her Senate bid against incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson. According to Friday’s OpinionJournal Political Diary (available by subscription):
Ed Rollins, a former Harris consultant who resigned earlier this year, says: “It’s the saddest thing I’ve even seen — a candidate whose ego and inability to recognize reality is hurting everything around her.”
Roger’s right. Individuals and both sides of the political aisle are open to being hypnotized into a political attitude which, they believe, will win them acceptanace, affection or accolades. That many on the left continue to embrace Huffington while most conservatives shun Harris suggests that contemporary conservatives are more skeptical of the self-serving zealots in our midst.
Still, it’s sad to see someone position him (or her) self politically not out of conviction, but out of desire for social acceptance. Not merely because it’s a sign of an individual’s hollowness, but also because, as we learn from the example of Katherine Harris, it doesn’t always work.
In the end, she’s left alone in the public square, a laughingstock to some, an embarrassment to others. And probably feeling empty inside, realizing that in losing touch with what first brought her into politics, she no longer has any cause to justify her presence in a public forum.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: Writing about Ned Lamont, Roger Simon relates the Connecticut Democrat’s political conversion to Arianna’s:
We could call this kind of convenient political conversion a “Huffington,” but he is far less skilled than Arianna, who knows how to feign approval of the other side, when necessary, at the drop of the hat, as she did while complimenting Charles Johnson today on the Reliable Sources show.
Read the whole thing!
27 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
harris is nuts. you might not like arriana huffington but she’s not nuts. not like that. not an apt comparison
Comment by lester — August 13, 2006 @ 5:46 pm - August 13, 2006
Isn’t this the same post you write over and over again about Andrew Sullivan?
Exactly who is obsessed?
Comment by little italy — August 13, 2006 @ 6:31 pm - August 13, 2006
ummmmm……wasn’t she, in addition to being secretary of state of FL, also the co-chair of Bush’s campaign in FL in 2000? Seems to me that her job of overseeing recounts and certifying the election results were just a teeny wee bit at odds with her position to see that Bush took Florida in the presidential election. ah well…sure this kind of things go on in politics in all parties all the time. sigh. Seems to me that states should have laws that people in positions like this should have to resign at least one of these positions.
PS – Just love how you spew your bile against those who’ve actually seen the current republican party as it truly is these days.
Comment by Kevin — August 13, 2006 @ 7:17 pm - August 13, 2006
When Ms. Huffington was an arrogant know-it-all conservative she made me want to climb the wall. Now that she’s an arrogant know-it-all leftist she makes me want to climb the wall. But I want to come to her defense.
Isn’t it possible, Dan, that Ms. Huffington’s conversion was legitimate. What evidence do you have that she moved to the left to win approval and acceptance in certain social circles? At first glance, the allegation seems almost as absurd as far-right claims that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor moved to the left (in their opinion, to the center in my opinion) to be popular on the Washington party circuit.
A lot of Americans, including many Republicans, have lost faith in President Bush. I’m among them. I supported Bush in 2000 with some enthusiasm (inflamed, I must admit, by the alternative). I held my nose in ’04 and voted for Bush’s re-election only because I resented the idea that the Democratic Party would try to foist someone as unfit as John Kerry on us. As the sixth anniversary of his election nears, I find myself almost ashamed that I ever supported Bush. I don’t hate him, but, except for the initial War On Terror after 9/11, there’s hardly anything he’s done that I agree with.
Comment by Trace Phelps — August 13, 2006 @ 10:32 pm - August 13, 2006
Um, Little Italy, did you read the post? It’s not about Andrew Sullivan.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 14, 2006 @ 2:53 am - August 14, 2006
Current Republican Party, Kevin? It seems you define it not as it is, but as you want it to be. The GOP refuses to back Ms. Harris. She may even lose a primary against a number of unknowns.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 14, 2006 @ 2:55 am - August 14, 2006
Fair point, Trace, but one with which I happen to disagree.
I might believe Arianna’s transformation if she ever once strayed from the left-wing anti-Bush bandwagon and made critiques consistent with her previous concerns and views. I take your criticisms more seriously (than I take hers) because you are an “equal opportunity” critic, taking issue with the Left as well as with the president. On issues of substance, she rarely parts from the dogma of the left.
Arianna was once a libertarian conservative, but now retains little of her previous philosophy and has joined the Left on nearly every issue.
I have read a lot of good conservative criticism of the president, particularly this past weekend. And the tone and substance of their remarks differ greatly from Mrs. Huffington’s attacks.
Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — August 14, 2006 @ 3:26 am - August 14, 2006
Dan:
In all seriousness…you have written a very insightful commentary. Huffington is in this for the glamor as witnessed when she tried to upstage Schwarzenegger when he filed his papers running for governor as she competed with him for HIS microphone. She epitomizes all that which is glitz and superficial. I do not take her commentary as being anything worthy of import.
Comment by Benj — August 14, 2006 @ 1:18 pm - August 14, 2006
Speaking as someone with an Eastern European background, what is it with Greeks and the Left? Are they all channeling Melina Mercouri or Nikos Kazantsakis? Have they watched too many reruns of “Z” or “Topkapi?” Too many late nights chugging the ouzo?
First you have Arianna Stassinopoulos-Huffington, then Markos Moulitsas at Daily K-Os, and some Reuters photographer named Yannis Behrakis who is also accused of doing some photoshopping with pics taken of some children in a Beiruit hospital. Go figure.
Frankly, I know a lot more conservative Greeks than liberal ones. One of my friends had a button in 1988 that read “Greeks for Bush.” It was so popular at his church that he made extras and sold them.
Incidentally, said friend above gave me a chuckle. He said if you really wanted to zing it to Markos Moulitsas at the Kos site, call him “Markos Mousitsa.” The word “mousitsa” roughly translates into “a pesky rodent or bat.”
When I heard that, I laughed my “piscino” off. OPA!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 14, 2006 @ 5:18 pm - August 14, 2006
6: hey, they jettisoned her from a cushy “plum” job in the Bush administration after all that nasty press over the recounts. Member of the house sure ain’t as important as being a Senator. Doesn’t matter how loyal you are, Republicans will dump you in a second. (keep that in mind as anti-gay fervor continues to grow in the Republican party).
I have to say, the moment I saw her on TV with that bad makeup job, she would be immediate fodder for Saturday Night Live…..sure enough, there was Ana Gasteyer that Saturday as Ms. Harris.
Comment by Kevin — August 14, 2006 @ 7:03 pm - August 14, 2006
Mckinney is the more obvious harris counterpart on the left
Comment by lester — August 14, 2006 @ 7:13 pm - August 14, 2006
#10 – Sort of like the DNC dumping NJ Gov. McGreevy for not only cheating on his wife with another MAN, but also having a big security risk on his hands as well with same man?
I dare you to name a gay GOP member who has ever been “ditched” by the Republicans. Jim Kolbe of AZ was praised for his efforts by the party. So where are the dumpees?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 14, 2006 @ 7:18 pm - August 14, 2006
Um, Kevin in #10, Harris never had a “plum” job in the Bush Administration. She was elected Secretary of State in 1998, with a term expiring in 2002. Knowing that her job would be abolished effective January 1, 2003, she ran for Congress. Since her first election to the Florida Senate in 1994, Ms. Harris has only held elective office and never held appointive office.
Thus, your comment merely confirms the point I made in comment (#6), you define the GOP not as it is, but as you assume it to be.
Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — August 14, 2006 @ 7:41 pm - August 14, 2006
13: She was slated to get a job in the Bush administration if he won the election to reward her for her loyalty, just like thousands of Republicans and Democrats have done in the past. Even Republicans on the Sunday shows after the election said so. Many people have left state positions for exactly that reason over the decades. She was intending to do so as well, until the debacle of the recounts and the Republicans didn’t want to be viewed as rewarding her for handing over the election to GWB. Like I said, the person certifying the election shouldn’t be the same person who has a vested interest in seeing one candidate win – much like Diebold shouldn’t be in the voter machine business.
Comment by Kevin — August 14, 2006 @ 11:14 pm - August 14, 2006
12: Frankly, I think McGreevy was a sleazebag of a politician who used the opportunity to get out while the getting was good, timing his announcement so that there would be no special eleciton for a replacement. Probably being honest about being gay is the only thing positive that came out of that whole mess.
I’m not sure why you’re comparing Katharine Harris to outing elected gay officials, but throwing out a red herring seems to be the usual sport here. I’m curious how Republican officials responded to Robert Bauman, his solicitation of a minor male, just a month before the election back in 1980.
Frankly, we have yet to see an openly gay person elected to the house or senate who was out when they ran for their first term. He and Frank were outed while in office, but managed to maintain their own. Interstingly enough, Kolbe was outed because of his support for DOMA. I agree with Frank….closeted gays/lesbians in government who actively work against other gays in the legislative process deserve to be outed; no questions asked. and note that I see a difference between that and other gay people in government, who are not openly gay and who do not work against other gays and have every right to live their lives privately.
I’m still hoping for some photos of Karl Rove at an MAL event show up on TV, but the thought of actually seeing that guy in leather is enough to make the bile rise in my throat.
Comment by Kevin — August 14, 2006 @ 11:40 pm - August 14, 2006
And by the way, I did a search on both Frank and Kolbe’s House websites for things like gay and homosexual. Not one mention whatsoever on Kolbe’s. Several mentions on Barney Frank’s, including a condemnation of treatment of gays in the United Arab Emirates. There’s even a letter from Frank and other members of congress to the Ambassador of the UAE from last December. I notice Kolbe’s signature isn’t on it.
Comment by Kevin — August 14, 2006 @ 11:50 pm - August 14, 2006
Kevin, yes, party loyalists on both sides get jobs after their party’s man wins election. And yes, some Republicans on Sunday shows said she’d get a job. But, I’m not seen anything from the Bush campaign indicating that she was going to get a job. If you have evidence of that, you’re welcome to provide a link. But, I doubt you’ll find anything.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 15, 2006 @ 3:11 am - August 15, 2006
#5. Um, GPW, did you get little italy’s point? I think s/he’s right: you can change the names, but you say the same things over and over about people that you place outside the bounds of Republican orthodoxy. They are cute meanderings, but they are essentially the same, no?
And when you say, “Um,” do you play with your hair?
Comment by jimmy — August 15, 2006 @ 7:06 am - August 15, 2006
jimmy draws attention to some new sockpuppet artistry… still the lower case/low self esteem thing going for these guys: “Um, GPW, did you get little italy’s point? I think s/he’s right”
We really need to find a way to track these lower case commentators with sock puppets… I kind of liked the old days when QueerPatriot or GayCowBoyBob knew how to use humor and hatred in the same line.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 15, 2006 @ 8:57 am - August 15, 2006
yeah, dan… do you play with your hair when you type “Umm”?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 15, 2006 @ 8:57 am - August 15, 2006
So Kevin, you think that it is your job to “out” anyone in government because YOU think they “deserve” it??
What kind of misanthrope are you? People like you deserve whatever life gives you. I would think that you would do better to spread love rather than hatred, especially with people whose sexual orientation you are supposed to identify with.
Just wait…the jihadists would use you like a toy and then throw you away like used toilet paper when you no longer served their needs or interests. Sounds to me like you would be willing to commit treason on behalf of your own beliefs.
Prove me wrong – I dare you.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 15, 2006 @ 4:32 pm - August 15, 2006
Honestly GPW, I think they are “better known” for “Bush-Hatred” only by you and some who think as you do. When I hear the name Andrew Sullivan I tend to think “gay marriage” or “former editor of NRO” or about his books, not Bush.
As for Arianna, well, “big mouth” or “ex-wife of that gay-millionaire-former-GOP-candidate” comes to mind. Not “Bush Hatred”. And like Andrew, she was around long before Bush came on the scene and will likely be around for a long time afterward.
You seem to be obsessing over Andrew and Arianna obsessing (in your view) about Bush. But if Al Gore were in office they would be talking about Al Gore, and writing articles about him instead. Its their job.
Besides, you and most of your readers claim that you “just can’t read Andrew Sullivan anymore”. If thats the case, how do you know what he writing about on a daily basis? For all you know, he could be writing about crotch-shaving.
Is it possible that you are just so hyper-sensitive to Bush criticism that it gets magnified in your view out of proportion to the actual content?
You seem to treat any criticism of the President almost as if it were an insult made toward yourself.
Lets call it “overly-defensive gay GOP’er” syndrome. Of course, if I had gone through some of the experiences that you have described about being castigated by gay people for your conservative views I’d have to say I’d be a bit sensitive too.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — August 15, 2006 @ 5:54 pm - August 15, 2006
Look whose gone off the deep end, speaking of Andie. Ace nails him.
Comment by anon — August 16, 2006 @ 12:18 pm - August 16, 2006
Patrick–
Andrew was never editor of NRO. While I find it difficult to read Andrew, most times when I check his blog, he is ranting against the president.
You keep repeating this nonsense that I’m hyper-sensitive to Bush-criticism. I’ve always made clear that my problem is not the criticism, but the tone. And Andrew’s tone (on those times when I have checked his blog since 02/24/04) tends to be out of proportion to the president’s latest policy or mistake.
Many conservatives, including one of my favorite blogs, Powerline, have been criticizing the Administration frequently in the past few days. And libertarian-inclinded conservatives have not been letting up on their criticism of his fiscal policies. I have never faulted them for their criticism, indeed, have taken note of it and even seconded it.
How many times do I need repeat this point? The problem is not that Andrew et al. criticize the president, but how they do so.
Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest_ — August 16, 2006 @ 8:20 pm - August 16, 2006
[...] About six months ago, I defined a term, Huffingtonitis to describe an individual who “defines his political views and makes public statements in order to win social approval and/or acceptance.” I also think some people take certain political stands in order to get media attention. [...]
Pingback by World and Global Politics Blog » Blog Archive » Hungry for Media Attention, Jimmy Carter Moves Left — February 7, 2007 @ 6:57 pm - February 7, 2007
[...] About six months ago, I defined a term, Huffingtonitis to describe an individual who “defines his political views and makes public statements in order to win social approval and/or acceptance.” I also think some people take certain political stands in order to get media attention. [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Hungry for Media Attention, Jimmy Carter Tacks Left — February 7, 2007 @ 7:45 pm - February 7, 2007
[...] An individual afflicted with Huffingtonitis (named for one if the syndrome’s most prominent victims) “defines his political views and makes public statements in order to win social approval and/or accep….” [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » McClellan: Showing Symptoms of Huffingtonitis? — May 30, 2008 @ 4:36 pm - May 30, 2008