As I work on a piece on gay marriage in anticipation of Thurday’s California Supreme Court hearing, I’m struck by the contrast between Andrew Sullivan’s 1989 essay, “Here Comes the Groom: a Conservative Case for Gay Marriage” and his 2008 Atlantic piece, “Big Fat Straight (sic) Wedding.” In the first piece, he makes a fresh and conservative case for state recognition of same-sex marriage. In the second, he offers little more than a plaintive liberal whine for state validation of his relationship.
Witnessing the degeneration of Andrew’s argument, I wondered if he was suffering from a kind of Stockholm Syndrome.
When I consider the criticism (often ad hominem) we’ve received since setting up this blog and compare it to the insults and attacks Andrew has suffered over the years, it’s like comparing the taunts of a schoolyard bully to the might of a world-class military.
Yeah, we’ve taken our knocks, but in the great scheme of things, they’ve been relatively benign. Andrew, by contrast, has been assaulted in public bars, had his personal life made public and until 2004 (and even since), endured a level of vitriol from the gay left that had previously been reserved only for elected Republicans and charismatic preachers.
And now, he mimics the arguments of those who once vilified him, while rushing to adore their anointed one.
Isn’t that kind of like Stockholm Syndrome when a hostage shows signs of sympathy, loyalty even, to his captors?
I think you may be right about this and Andrew Sullivan. Or possibly he has made a conscious decision that to be more liberal would be beneficial both professionally and financially. I think he may have judged that there is greater profit and success to be with the media, leading to opportunities he would not have as a conservative. And he plays the fence so well on some issues to just slightly confuse – keeping one foot on each side.
It’s a shame really. My husband knew Andrew personally and thought highly of him until, well, this lasting visit to Stockholm.
First off: President Obama wasn’t “annointed”, he was elected president not only in accordance with the Electoral college, but also in a clear general election majority (unlike GWB’s first “win” in 2000).
This article is another clear indication how un-willing ultra-conservatives are equipped to recognize and react to change. (the lack of any new ideas for dealing with the economic crisis is a good case in point too) Andrew Sullivan has become a very clear voice in what has been wrong with conservative politics in this country for some time. Interstingly, I watched his changes occur not only in his writings, but in his appearances on Bill Maher. He was often stating that he agreed wholeheartedly with item X, but that he disagreed with subset of item X, item Y. It seems that he came to the realization that you can’t achieve your goals for forward movement if you continue to support X, but not support Y. Equity in the law in this country will not come about as long as you cowtow to those charge, you have to stand up to them.
Did you even read the post, Kevin?
We’re not talking about Obama’s election as president here. In this particular post, where I used the word, “anointed, (the post to which you choose to respond) refers to the favor Obama enjoys within certain segments of the left with whom Andrew is eager to curry favor.
(Let me explain since your response indicates you don’t understand what a possessive pronoun is. Here’s the sentence where I used the word, anointed: “And now, he mimics the arguments of those who once vilified him, while rushing to adore their anointed one.” “He” refers to Andrew Sullivan, the subject of this piece. “Their” references “those who once vilified him.” Those people are mostly on the left. And they’ve gone ga-ga (if you’ve been following the media these last nigh on two years) over Obama. And so has Andrew.)
Lack of ideas to deal with economic crisis? Give me a break, Kevin and read this blog. Just yesterday (my equality post), I linked a piece Congressman Paul Ryan penned offering some ideas.
So, please quit spouting liberal talking points as a rote response to our posts and actually address the things we say, in the context we say them.
Dan, you’re requiring Kevin to read and think.
That’s a change he’s unwilling to believe in.
I think it’s a continious pressure though, to become popular. It’s like being with the cool guy in highschool, taken to an extreme. Andrew ‘sold out’ as it were, to hang with the cool kids.
I think any news organization that refers to Sullivan as a “conservative” should be sued for fraudulent reporting.
Kevin — just what do you perceive is so “conservative” about Sullivan that you still think he is one?
Formerly conservative is much more accurate, but hey, they believe we all should follow Sully and be ‘conservative’ like him.
maybe you should avoid playing armchair psychologist, especially since you recently excoriated all those mean-spirited gay leftists who do the same thing by calling you self-hating.
Sullivan is a hack. No principles, whatsoever. It’s a shame, really. I used to respect the man.
You know, I keep hoping some liberal will explain to me what’s so new and innovative about throwing trillions of dollars of other people’s money at Chairman Obama funders. What’s so new and innovative about punishing businesses that you NEED to hire people? What’s so new and innovative in taxing the American people, whom you NEED to spend their own money to stimulate the economy, into oblivion?
The DJIA has given up 25% of it’s value in the last two months. There’s clearly no confidence in Chairman Obama or the crazy liberal scheme to bilk the American people and reward their cronies. Nobody’s buying it except for smug, liberal assholes like Kevin, who wouldn’t buy it either unless he was told to do so.
Maybe there’s no “new ideas” because the old ones worked so well. It worked for Kennedy, it worked for Reagan and it worked for Bush. What we DO know, without a doubt, is that the “new idea” of pissing away money doesn’t do a damn thing but prolong the pain.
“There’s absolutely nothing wrong with you that a good, expensive surgery can’t prolong.” – Monty Python
Not that there is any shortage of hypocrisy on Sullivan’s rag, but I happened across his site yesterday or the day before and the man who regularly poses as the sole “conservative” on panels of fellow Republican-bashers was whining that Chris Wallace was no longer “fair and balanced” because he dared talk to 2 Republicans about the budget without talking to any Democrats.
Fair point, Chad. And it’s kind of why I made sure to include this post in the “Random Thoughts” category. The notion occurred to me as I was preparing a post I am now editing and stayed with me as I ran errands and voted.
It just strikes me as odd that Andrew now seems to eager to please a crowd of people so eager to vilify him when he so bravely and eloquently challenged the gay orthodoxy.
4: Yes I did read the post and I didn’t see the point of whacking President Obama (yet again) as some kind of Messiah in the next to last sentence. It’s the type of false rhetoric that his opponents are gonna keep at him for the next 4 years. But, if you don’t have any issues that would keep Kenneth Starr employed in an investigation, then you gotta have something, I guess.
As far as Sullivan is concerned – If you actually listened to him, you would hear that he does still hold conservative beliefs. However, you’re so hell-bent on attacking anyone who puts a toe out of line from your views, you can’t see that. His writing and commentary actually does put the finger on where conservatives have gone wrong and why. The rhetoric spouted in this blog (ad nauseam, I might add) points to either that the message was not conveyed correctly or that it’s the media’s fault. yawn.
Kevin, I’ll agree the messianic rhetoric got old on the campain trail it is a steady source of mocking and derision, anyone who would think they’re teh messiah..
I mean really, to say to people that he’s the one they’d been waiting for. That with his election the seas would start to go down and the planet would start to heal. What kind of idiot makes such divine pronouncements about a community organizer and perpetual candidate?
By all means, enlighten us. I’m not as familiar with Milky Glutes as you obviously are. Share away.
Oh and I wouldn’t mind a reply to #10.
bother, tripple filtered
And yet, that hasn’t stopped you from taking up the martyr’s mantel, most recently on display here.
What is worse, by the way — saying someone is “self-hating” for holding a specific set of political beliefs or wondering aloud whether one has Stockholm Syndrome for holding a particular set of political beliefs?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Erik, given that gay leftists like you are perfectly content with and see nothing calling gay conservatives self-loathing, all your criticism of GPW is demonstrating is that you are a hypocrite. Since you do it, you have no right to criticize GPW for doing it.
Meanwhile, though, I will criticize GPW for doing it for that exact reason. Sullivan doesn’t have a syndrome of any sort; what he has done is made a conscious choice to be popular rather than correct, just as the vast majority of the gay community does. And as far as his “conservative values” goes, he can say what he wants; his actions make it clear that he supports the exact opposite, and that makes him a hypocrite.
Or, Andrew Sullivan believes he is correct, like North Dallas Thirty believes NDT is correct.
Unlike NDT, Andrew Sullivan has contradicted himself on virtually every major issue to the point that he is a laughingstock. If he really does believe he is correct, it only goes to support the idea that he has major mental issues. Only someone with multiple personality disorder could agree with Sullivan’s schizophrenic positions.
American Elephant,
The two articles in question were written 19 years apart. Schizophrenic would be if they were written 19 minutes apart (if in fact they contradict each other, which I don’t know, since I haven’t read them, nor an I interested).
Apparently, NDT and GPW and you held the same believes at 11 and at 30 and also now. That does explain things.
I will apologize to GPW and yourself if you can find any instance on this blog where I have ever called gay Republicans “self-hating.” But since I’ve never said that, and wouldn’t say that, I think you owe me an apology for such rote defamation.
Erik, why seek an apology from an 11-year-old-minded “grown-up”?
I will apologize to GPW and yourself if you can find any instance on this blog where I have ever called gay Republicans “self-hating.â€
I’d be more impressed if that had any relevance to what I said in the first place.
Erik, given that gay leftists like you are perfectly content with and see nothing calling gay conservatives self-loathing, all your criticism of GPW is demonstrating is that you are a hypocrite.
Try repudiating your fellow Obama Party members who call gay conservatives self-loathing and stating how they’re all hypocrites. THAT would be entertaining to watch.
Trying again, since apparently it never made it to the filter *sigh*
#13 Kevin. I agree, the messanic rhetoric is overdone. I mean claiming to make the world heal, the seas lower and being the one we are waiting for is the height of claiming to be the second coming. How dare someone bring that up!
“If you actually listening to him, he does articulate conservative beliefs” Such as? Care to provide examples? That gauntlet was thrown down, by all means take it up.
Unlike Levi, I would actually like to read the links.