Why Andrew Sullivan Made a Hard Left Turn
For the better part* of Andrew Sullivan’s career, he was something of an iconoclast. While he identified himself as a conservative (he still does), he was really more of a conservative by default. He got his start in American journalism, writing for The New Republic, the flagship magazine of serious liberal thought, but he was anything but an American liberal. Nor did he fit within the mainstream of conservative thought, yet in his heyday (from about 1989 to 2004), he was philosophically closer to contemporary conservatism than he was to Anglo-American liberalism.
What distinguished him more than anything was that he was the first (or at least the most prominent) gay public intellectual to write about gay issues in a way that challenged the gay orthodoxy. And for that he earned the scorn of those with whom he liked to socialize.
An intellectual by day, Andrew enjoyed (and I presume still enjoys) frequenting gay haunts at night. He summers in Provincetown, long a retreat for East Coast gays, nearly all of whom (the outspoken ones at least) hold left-of-center political views. And while Andrew, like all of us (or most of us at least), didn’t push his political ideas during every hour of the day, many of his ideological adversaries were determined to define him by his departures from said gay orthodoxy.
Instead of finding his off-time as a respite from the rigors of his working life, his angry adversaries used it to remind him of his unorthodox opinions. They insulted him in bars, threw drinks in his face and, if one account is to believed, even spit on him. Other gay writers and activists were no kinder, regularly ridiculing him as a traitor to the cause. One such individual made Andrew’s private life a source for public censure.
Such nastiness takes its toll even on the hardiest of human beings. And Andrew is, if anything, human, very human.
That’s one reason I think he has, in recent years, gone so far to the left, more out of a sense of fatigue at being the outcast among his peers than anything else.
Just over five years ago, when then-President Bush came out in favor the Federal Marriage Amendment and Andrew Sullivan responded with an angry rant on his blog, a gay leftist on a listserv to which I then subscribed e-mail us that post, offering that “even Andrew Sullivan” was taking W to task. Surely, he wasn’t the only erstwhile critic of Sullivan to celebrate the one-time iconoclast’s criticism of the much maligned Republican. Andrew was earning accolades from those who once ridiculed him.
All of us, no matter how much we claim otherwise, delight in the praise of our peers, those with whom we socialize on a regular basis. When Andrew Sullivan criticized George W. Bush, perhaps for the first time in his life, gained the praise of such individuals. Previously, he had drawn praise primarily from the more thoughtful voices in journalism, specifically punditry, and in the think tanks in our nation’s capital.
(To be sure, a few gay writers and editors and average every day gay folk recognized his talents as well as those in the then-nascent gay conservative movement.)
As his rant against W helped him gain favor with gay activists, he turned it into a shtick which has increasingly come to define his voice.
The sensible, level-headed voice challenging liberal pieties became in blogger John Hawkins’s words, “the most inconsistent, scatterbrained, haphazard writer in politics today.” And yet while Andrew has become a card-carrying member of the angry left, he he has one thing which few of his fellow travelers have, a body of work which will endure.
His essay, Here Comes the Groom: a Conservative Case for Gay Marriage, has, in many ways, come to define the serious arguments in favor of gay marriage. His essays on friendship and sexuality resonate with anyone who has ever differed from the social norm. His insights into politics help us better understand the flaws of Bill Clinton and, before February 24, 2004, even George W. Bush. He was a blogging pioneer who foresaw the influence of this medium of communication and commentary.
But, he’s also a human being. And perhaps his success in the public arena made him long for something more tangible and perhaps even more meaningful in the private one, the sense of belonging in his community of peers.
While I know others many differ with me as to why Andrew became such an excitable opponent of George W. Bush and cheerleader for his successor, that’s my view of this blogger. And yes, it is a somewhat sympathetic view because well, Andrew is a sympathetic guy. I met him, have seen his flaws as well as his generosity, his arrogance as well as his compassion. He’s a complicated guy, but underneath it all, he does have a good heart. And that’s saying something. No, that’s saying a lot.
—-
*double entendre intended
61 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
As a former conservative myself, I find it laughable that you seem to believe the only reason someone would abandon what passes for contemporary “conservatism” is peer pressure. I think if you have been reading Sullivan for any length of time it became quite clear that he was becoming increasingly frustrated at defending a movement that had been hijacked by religious extremists and neocons. Sorry but you can easily find frustrations from other conservative intellectuals like David Frum, who is hardly a traitor to the cause. Actually Frum is who you guys should be listening to if you want to save the cause of conservatism.
Comment by Houndentenor — March 21, 2009 @ 6:48 pm - March 21, 2009
It’s both psychic income and literal income. Conservatism doesn’t pay as well and I suspect his was a deliberate decision to achieve accolades and salaries not available to those whose commentaries are erratic. But I wonder whether he has changed merely his tone or his stripes. Has he been inflated or infected? Both?
Comment by Ignatius — March 21, 2009 @ 6:50 pm - March 21, 2009
Um, Houndentenor, when did I saw that the only reason one would abandon contemporary conservatism is peer pressure. I’m looking here at one particular case.
And Andrew, at least until 2004, often praised the neocons; it was the religious extremists he was lambasting — and often for good cause.
Frum, while a smart man, is clueless how to reach out to voters.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 21, 2009 @ 6:55 pm - March 21, 2009
Dan, I agree with you up to point. Had he remained in the realm of Bush bashing, your points make sense.
But he went further, waaay further than that. He has a pathological fascination with torture. His rants about Sarah Palin and baby Trig are beyond comprehension, and lately, antisemitism is rearing it’s ugly head in his writings.
Although I disagree with David Frum or David Brooks, they are still reasonable people. The same can no longer be said about Andrew Sullivan.
Comment by Leah — March 21, 2009 @ 7:00 pm - March 21, 2009
#2: Having principles doesn’t pay these days. It’s a bitch, ain’t it?
#1: Some of us who were angry with Bush’s decision did not sacrifice our beliefs for the sake of convenience.
Comment by Attmay — March 21, 2009 @ 7:51 pm - March 21, 2009
#5 That it is and so is he.
Comment by Ignatius — March 21, 2009 @ 8:06 pm - March 21, 2009
A change of political heart I can understand, even if I find it personally disappointing. Andrew’s descent into base conspiracy theories with Palin was the tipping point at which, even if tomorrow he converted back to everything I believe, I could never forgive him nor take him seriously. If you can’t disagree with Palin without indulging in bizarre and irrelevant conspiracy theories, you have no place in the adult conversation.
My theory on the main cause of his conversion is his feeling of betrayal over the Iraq war. He supported Bush to the hilt going in, but when WMDs failed to appear and then the Bush administration seemed to be supporting torture, he seemed to take it personally and go through an intense conversion experience.
Now, I have issues with the idea of the US torturing people, and I have great concerns about whether (especially under Rumsfeld) we were picking people up at random and treating them as terrorists. But my concerns don’t outweigh the bigger picture, and they sure as heck don’t blind me to into cheerleading for the next Music Man who comes along…(sorry, just saw the musical and it seems appropriate…)
Comment by Ronald Hayden — March 21, 2009 @ 8:12 pm - March 21, 2009
As for Sully, I say his political “change” is more like case of Stockholm Syndrome and intellectual exhaustion.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — March 21, 2009 @ 8:31 pm - March 21, 2009
Sullivan is the Grandpa Simpson of the blogosphere.
Comment by V the K — March 21, 2009 @ 8:33 pm - March 21, 2009
Sullivan’s conversion ‘against’ Bush can be traced to a specific date: 2/24/04. And to a specific issue: gay marriage. 2/24/04 was the date that Bush proposed a Federal Marriage Amendment, against gay marriage. Sullivan’s posts from that date on started to sound eerily disoriented.
To be clear, I am a longtime gay marriage supporter and states’ rights supporter, and I agree the FMA was a terrible idea and something to be opposed. But the FMA didn’t disorient me or cause me to become a hard-left Democrat in all but name. It did Sullivan. I find that very weird.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2009 @ 8:39 pm - March 21, 2009
As a life long, active conservative who is obliged to work among liberals, I have never met a conservative turned liberal.
How does one deep six a strong belief system based on tried and true principles and a strong ethic to become an ideologue dedicated to moral relevancy and the primacy of “feelings?”
Comment by heliotrope — March 21, 2009 @ 10:13 pm - March 21, 2009
Andrew Sullivan is not nearly as cute as Wayne Besen. Just a thought.
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 21, 2009 @ 10:24 pm - March 21, 2009
Sullivan wants to be religious. He used to write extensively about faith, even going so far as to claim he knows better than then Pope John Paul II what Catholicism means. (In case you’re wondering, according to Andrew real Catholics approve of gay sex). He has written a great deal about how important his faith is to him. Yet his most poisonous bile is reserved for people who actually believe what the Bible says about teh homosex. Nevermind that Sarah Palin has never done anything to curtail anyone’s rights, just the fact that she believes the Bible causes his brain to boil and bile to shoot out his nostrils.
He also wants excruciatingly badly to have homosexuality declared officially equal to heterosexuality by the government. I’d say, based on his writings, that it is the most important cause in his life. Anyone paying attention saw that the catalyst for his descent into madness was President Bush’s opposition to gay marriage.
I believe the man is deeply, deeply troubled, and has monstrous issues with his sexuality, his faith and self esteem. He lashes out most viciously at the religious, not because they have done anything to him, but because they remind him of his own demons. He thinks the government can make his lambs stop screaming, and he hates anyone who would deny him that.
In short, he went nuts because he is nuts.
Comment by American Elephant — March 21, 2009 @ 10:47 pm - March 21, 2009
For two years I was excited to visit Andrew’s blog. But about 2004 I stopped as well. His television appearances got to be mean spirited attacks against the administration. On 9/12 many liberals were stunned into supporting the Bush Administration. But it didn’t last long. Back on their meds and supported by their inner circles, most leftists began to realize it was America’s fault that “freedom fighters” were attacking NYC. The only sympathy I have for Andrew Sullivan comes from the fact that no one can survive in a pack and be the one outlyer. In east coast society, you can’t survive as even much of a moderate. The most recent example…Jim Cramer. He goes off the reservation one time….just a few yards, and the entire wieght of the eastern establishment comes down on his head like so many bricks. Well if you caught Cramer thursday and friday. He’s going out of his way to snuggle up to the Obamaphiles. David Brooks with the NYT. One conservative amongst 350 leftists. How you gonna act?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 21, 2009 @ 10:53 pm - March 21, 2009
And by the way Andrew Sullivan was closer to death than any of us can imagine. If he is a little scared, and lashes out because he wants to see legalized gay marriage, or the church to liberalize some of it’s tennants, I can understand that. One of my favorite of his tv appearances was when he defended mightily big pharma. Simply because it was saving his life with new and exciting HIV drugs. He begged not to tax and chase pharmaceutical companies out of the USA. Because he believed they were doing amazing things and saving lives.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 21, 2009 @ 10:59 pm - March 21, 2009
Forget, please, “conservatism.” It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
“[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
PS – And “Mr. Worldly Wiseman†Rush Limbaugh never made a bigger ass of himself than at CPAC where he told that blasphemous “joke†about himself and God.
Comment by John Lofton, Recovering Republican — March 21, 2009 @ 11:04 pm - March 21, 2009
Oh I understand why he does it. I think the conflict between homosexuality and faith is very real in most gay people’s lives even if they won’t admit it. I think its natural to believe in God, and that many who claim they don’t, either really do, or really want to. Its a difficult fact of life for gays to deal with.
But understanding why he’s a hate-filled repugnant jerk doesn’t excuse that he is one.
Comment by American Elephant — March 21, 2009 @ 11:23 pm - March 21, 2009
You made me smile AE. I’m abreviatiing HFRJ (hate filled repugnant jerk). I may use that myself sometime with your permission.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 21, 2009 @ 11:41 pm - March 21, 2009
Sullivan’s blog was one of the first three blogs I read regularly–starting around 2001. Although he was given to excitability in his reaction to Abu Ghraib in 2003, he didn’t completely lose it until the Bush speech in February 2004. I started reading him less and less, and within about six months I had pretty much stopped reading him. Some of his writings were very influential on me in trying to come to terms with both my sexual and political orientations, but his BDS got so bad that I just couldn’t stand having to bother with his writings any more. And the sad truth is, the further off the deep end Sullivan has gone, the more cut off I have felt from the gay community. Yes, I have this blog, and there are others, but the truth is that Sullivan had attained a certain stature within both the world of the media and the gay community, and so while it was odd to not fit in with the prevailing left-wing view, there was at least his example to point to. Now I know that there are other conservative gay voices out there, but unfortunately few of them seem to have attracted the attention that his did, and so fewer gay people even seem to bother to try to understand.
Comment by Kurt — March 22, 2009 @ 2:10 am - March 22, 2009
Andrew Sullivan, writing in The Advocate, 5 July, 2005:
And just so there’s no misunderstanding, he repeated the claim in the next graf:
What “more depth, more intimacy” actually means, of course, is that he can be a “power bottom” without the fuss and bother of condoms, because he’s already infected, hooray! (But, fortunately, the cost of his meds is subsidized by other people’s insurance premiums.)
(Circa 2003, when I was still an enthusiastic booster of Mr. Sullivan, the left-wing writer David Ehrenstein put on his stern-gay-uncle voice and said to me in a blog comment: “Throbert, you should know better than to believe a deranged queen like Randy Andy!” Suffice to say, time has proved Ehrenstein correct on that point, at least.)
Comment by Throbert McGee — March 22, 2009 @ 2:53 am - March 22, 2009
John,
Lighten up. God invented humor too. I think its why the page you linked to has a bunch of links to porn and sex sites.
Perhaps its God’s way of saying He knows Rush wasn’t serious and that you take yourself far too seriously.
Comment by American Elephant — March 22, 2009 @ 2:54 am - March 22, 2009
I guess I’m just a dumb country boy, but I never considered Sullivan a conservative. Moderate liberal perhaps, but his supposed conservatism was always that of Senators Snow (does that have an e?) and Specter. I personally always took it as a useful myth for marketing purposes that he claimed to be conservative, just like his claims of Catholicism.
I do know from an email exchange that he has all the arrogance and disdain for opposing viewpoints that a NE establishment liberal or RINO has. So his flying his true colors in no surprise.
KPM
Comment by Kevin — March 22, 2009 @ 3:05 pm - March 22, 2009
Sullivan was only a conservative when contrasted with shrieking leftist whackjobs like Michelangelo Signorile or John Halitosis. The same way Hillary is “thin” compared to Rosie O’Donnell.
Now, he’s a useful beard to the left, because they can say, “Even the conservative Andrew Sullivan supports redistribution of income” or “Even the conservative Andrew Sullivan thinks Bush should be tried for war crimes.”
Comment by V the K — March 22, 2009 @ 4:28 pm - March 22, 2009
#23: In short, he’s a conservative like I’m a heterosexual.
Comment by Attmay — March 22, 2009 @ 5:01 pm - March 22, 2009
John Halitosis?
Comment by American Elephant — March 22, 2009 @ 5:04 pm - March 22, 2009
I was an original monetary supporter of Andrew Sullivan years ago when he was first starting to blog. At the time, the man seemed to have an educated, functioning brain. A conservative, in tune with his Catholic faith, raising important issues and giving them a positive conservative view. I’m not sure if Dan is right as to the reason of his swing to the left; personally, I’ve found him to have become very embittered and sour. I think, and I could very well be wrong, that his illness and the vicious treatment he received when his online cruising was discovered and exposed are largely responsible for his change. Perhaps this is in line with Dan’s thinking; he got tired of being beat up for his behavior. Then again, it was HIS behavior that got all the attention; can’t hold anyone other then him responsible for his behavior. But I will always remember a brief email exchange we had years ago. I mentioned that I lived near SF, his response was “I’d rather live in Cuba”. That, to me, was just the perfect response.
Comment by John in Dublin, CA — March 23, 2009 @ 12:09 am - March 23, 2009
Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…
…
Trackback by Anonymous — March 23, 2009 @ 5:58 am - March 23, 2009
I think the conflict between homosexuality and faith is very real in most gay people’s lives even if they won’t admit it. I think its natural to believe in God, and that many who claim they don’t, either really do, or really want to. Its a difficult fact of life for gays to deal with.
I think your right about the conflict in most gay people’s lives, but don’t see why that has to be the case. Belief in God does not have to translate to believing that homosexuality is a sin, any more than eating pork is. I think the conflict is more with people who still, for some reason, hold on to the belief that homosexuality is a sin and believe that God endorses that.
Comment by Pat — March 23, 2009 @ 7:14 am - March 23, 2009
Um, you mean like scripture stating explicitly that homosexual acts are sinful? That silly old reason?
Reconciliation of faith and sexuality is difficult and requires a serious, thoughtful … and I think, deeply personal… approach. Trivializing the very real conflict is not helpful.
Comment by V the K — March 23, 2009 @ 8:27 am - March 23, 2009
#23: It IS silly. First of all, most people are citing an inept English translation of Hebrew. Second of all, the Bible was written by men claiming to speak for God, not God. Second, we’re talking about a book that advocates murder as punishment for trivial actions.
Here’s a deal for all you self-righteous goyim: I’ll be celibate if you keep kosher.
Comment by Attmay — March 23, 2009 @ 2:44 pm - March 23, 2009
#30 – Speaking as a goy who is Eastern Orthodox, all I can say is that based upon the New Testament and church tradition, the reason why Christians do not need to “keep kosher” was because of the new covenant between Christ and his apostles to return the faithful to God. Therefore, it is not necessary and anyone who is “self-righteous” should not be calling themselves a Christian, period.
In our Church, the icon of the Resurrection depicts Christ reaching with his arms into Hades and bringing forth Adam and Eve, who were denied Paradise due to disobeying God’s orders in the Garden of Eden. In this way, the Old and New Testaments are bridged.
Plus, just FYI (although I think I’ve explained it to Dan and Leah), our traditions are founded on Judaic law, i.e. beginning the liturgical day as sun sets, the traditional 40-day churching of a mother and newborn, circumcision etc. More so than the Roman Catholics or other Christian denominations, we are spiritually bound to the traditions of the early Church as it was founded in the Holy Land.
Didn’t mean to turn this thread into a discussion of religion, but for you to compare celibacy to keeping kosher is like apples to oranges.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 23, 2009 @ 2:56 pm - March 23, 2009
#28,
It doesn’t unless your faith is one that accepts the moral tenets of a book that calls it out. Then you have to ignore anything you don’t like aka reform Judaism or the Mainline Churches. If you are Catholic, Orthodox, Conservative Jewish, or Islamic, you have a problem. (More so in the last case where you can end up dead.) None of those faiths are willing to change their teaching for modern morals.Some of them still forbid all sex outside of a religiously approved marriage, usury, eating certain foods, etc. You join, you buy the package. Religion isn’t a cafeteria or a buffet. Rep. Pelosi seems to be trying to ignore that lesson. It will be interesting to see if she, Sen. Snow and others even have their local churches acknowledge the excommunication as happened to Dukakis.
Sullivan indulges himself in the modern fallacy that one should have the right to change an institution to suit ones personal desires. That is a bad assumption to make when the institution follows different rules. Most religions viewpoint is you change to suit them.
#29
I’d say your right. At some point you have to decide if you will honestly try change to suit the Church or you will leave and find one you can agree with. It’s not easy even if you’re heterosexual, but who the hell said life was supposed to be easy?
KPM
Comment by Kevin — March 23, 2009 @ 3:04 pm - March 23, 2009
If one wants to disregard explicit Biblical teachings by saying, “I’m sure that’s not what God meant,” one is free to do so. Of course, then, you can go on to disregard anything in the Bible that’s inconvenient.
If religious faith isn’t important to someone, then writing off anything in the Bible one disagrees with is easy enough. But for a person to whom faith matters, the more sincere and honest approach is to pray on the matter deeply and sincerely, as well as studying criticisms of the texts, and reaching one’s conclusions in a way that sincerely honors God.
Comment by V the K — March 23, 2009 @ 3:39 pm - March 23, 2009
I think the question is whether God belongs to the institution, or whether we belong to God and he belongs to us as individuals. Does the Pope have the exclusive rights? Men can only speak of God, not for him.
Comment by Marc — March 23, 2009 @ 3:45 pm - March 23, 2009
#31 – Kevin, did Dukakis really get excommunicated from the Greek Orthodox Church? If so, I’d like to see the actual news article that shows it.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 23, 2009 @ 4:54 pm - March 23, 2009
Um, you mean like scripture stating explicitly that homosexual acts are sinful? That silly old reason?
Yes, V the K, after serious, deep thought, I do regard that as a silly old reason. There are many other things that Christians have found outdated in the Bible. Again, after serious thought, I just went one step further. Besides, most Christians ignore the pork ban from the Bible without much thought.
Reconciliation of faith and sexuality is difficult and requires a serious, thoughtful … and I think, deeply personal… approach. Trivializing the very real conflict is not helpful.
Sure, but believing a particular tenet, simply because it is written in the Bible, Koran, or other sacred text, is also trivializing the conflict. And that sure is not helpful either.
If religious faith isn’t important to someone, then writing off anything in the Bible one disagrees with is easy enough.
But most people of religious faith do write off the Bible, as most people of religious faith do not consider the Bible their sacred text. I assume you mean writing off anything in any sacred text.
But for a person to whom faith matters, the more sincere and honest approach is to pray on the matter deeply and sincerely, as well as studying criticisms of the texts, and reaching one’s conclusions in a way that sincerely honors God.
I agree that that would be an approach. The tough part is the “sincerely honors God” part, and trying to figure out what that means. What if, as Attmay suggests (and I’m afraid I tend to believe) that the Bible (and any other sacred text, for that matter) was written by people claiming to speak for God. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think such a belief is that irrational.
If you are Catholic, Orthodox, Conservative Jewish, or Islamic, you have a problem.
I can’t speak for the other religions, Kevin, but regarding Catholics, I’m pretty certain that a good 95% or so in this country, commit one of the big nonos, including the ones who wait until marriage to have sex. That is, they use birth control. I remember a nun once telling me that Catholic tenets, in a nutshell, can be found in the Nicene Creed. Nothing about birth control or homosexuality there.
Comment by Pat — March 23, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - March 23, 2009
Filtered.
Comment by Pat — March 23, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - March 23, 2009
John, I think you’re onto something.
Still, why would those forms of bitterness drive Sullivan further left? If lefties go out of their way to scorn and humilate you… why move in their direction? If Christian rightists are manning the hospitals and hospices that you depended on when you were closer to death, and in fact are generally helpful to you, why learn to hate them? Unless your ideology is progressively twisting you.
Where I think you’re really onto something is in regard to Sullivan’s illness. I can’t remember the article where I saw the following, and don’t want to dig it out right now, but… there was a study a few years back which showed that the common AIDS drugs slowly attack the reasoning centers of the brain. Not the disease, mind you: the drugs. The quality of Sullivan’s mind – e.g., his arguments; his ever-increasing emotionalism and illogic – has degenerated these last few years, in tandem with his increasing leftism.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 23, 2009 @ 5:51 pm - March 23, 2009
#17 Interesting because in my opinion most people who claim to believe in God obviously do not or they wouldn’t live the lives they do, lying, stealing and doing whatever they want thinking that what they manage to keep secret doesn’t really count. Those are not the actions of someone who believes in an omnipotent and omniscient deity.
And far be it from me to begrudge Sullivan for rants against a homophobic (and mostly hypocritically so) church. But then I’m not Catholic so it’s no skin off my nose. I just think it’s funny to read pronouncements against homosexuality from a pope who wears red Prada shoes and is known to keep a male lover.
And most amusing, conservatives who come to a site called Gay Patriot and can’t bother to drop their homophobic bile even here. Sad. Really sad.
Comment by Houndentenor — March 23, 2009 @ 7:10 pm - March 23, 2009
Peter
Dukakis is refused the sacraments for his marriage and raising of his kids outside the church. That is what Orthodox consider excommunication and it is considered something people do to themselves. It isn’t a ceremonial thingy like with the RC church, though I guess it could be.But yes, he attended services but was not allowed to commune.
It was an issue in his campaign. Non-Greek Orthodox Churches would not accept him. The Greeks were happy one of theirs made the big leagues. That happened to the point the Greeks were willing to overlook the past and pretend it never happened. G. Wills discusses it in Under God and the NYT gives a different take after he ran for President.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/07/us/dukakis-s-ties-to-orthodox-church-stay-warm-despite-abortion-stance.html?n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FA%2FAbortion
http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/bad-icons-2/ (in the comments)
In the election, it was common knowledge in Orthodox circles.
From a parish viewpoint, if you don’t receive once a year, you’re outside the faith. Otherwise the Greeks tend to be the Orthodox Anglicans and accpet anything as long as you are Greek while the Russian are the hard core… Possibly because the Greeks are still the most ethnic of the Orthodox Churches. Non-Greeks are not often welcome. (These are Generalities so they are not always true)
Hope that helps,
KPM
Comment by Kevin — March 23, 2009 @ 7:46 pm - March 23, 2009
conservatives who come to a site called Gay Patriot and can’t bother to drop their homophobic bile even here.
Examples, please, he said, holding out the crucifix to the vampire.
Comment by V the K — March 23, 2009 @ 8:24 pm - March 23, 2009
*yawn* Houndtenor don’t you have any new material? The ‘Homophobe = anyone who doens’t like me’ and Catholic bashing is such old stick.
“Lame!
Comment by The_Livewire — March 23, 2009 @ 10:14 pm - March 23, 2009
Bugger wrong button.
“Lame! Where’s the “A” material? Make a face, drop your pants, something!”
Comment by The_Livewire — March 23, 2009 @ 10:14 pm - March 23, 2009
Houndentenor,
Your obvious anger and hatred towards religious people and the Pope just goes to prove my point.
Thanks.
Comment by American Elephant — March 24, 2009 @ 2:23 am - March 24, 2009
#38 – “I just think it’s funny to read pronouncements against homosexuality from a pope who wears red Prada shoes and is known to keep a male lover.”
Cite proof please, otherwise keep your conspiracy theories to yourself.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 24, 2009 @ 10:29 am - March 24, 2009
Peter H,
I put up a long post about the Dukakis, excommunication, ethnic churches, etc that has been eaten by the filters. As you said you are EO, you know it isn’t like the RC thingy. If you go back to pre-presidential stuff, you will find it was common knowledge due to his marriage outside the faith. There was an article when he was governor in the Boston paper on it. When he ran for President, the Greeks ignored it. However, when he came to Texas to speak, the non-Greek Orthodox refused him access to their churches because of it. Like the article I referenced said, it had nothing to do with abortion.
I’m using excommunication in the Orthodox sense of being refused the sacraments. I’m too lazy to dig it all out again.
Kevin
Comment by Kevin — March 24, 2009 @ 10:36 am - March 24, 2009
Fatigue is an interesting argument. But what about the fatigue of arguing for conservative principals to theocrats and neocons who call themselves conservative?
I find it FAR easier to argue for lower taxes, fewer abortions, more freedom, et al, at a demorat meeting than suggesting gay marriage, equal rights and environmental conservation to a meeting of republicans. And I have tried both.
Fatigue? Perhaps, but everyone has a limit to associating themselves with a “conservative” group that is anything but conservative.
Is it “peer pressure” that is keeping conservatives from touting less regulation, free markets and personal retirement accounts invested in the stock market, or is it the reality of the times?
Comment by Chuck In Del — March 24, 2009 @ 11:37 am - March 24, 2009
#44 – Kevin, I had heard that Kitty Dukakis did not convert from Judaism upon her marriage to Michael, which in itself is antithetical to Church doctrine (if a non-Christian marries a Greek Orthodox, he/she needs to convert or the marriage is not recognized in an ecclesiastical sense). So that makes sense.
As far as Greeks who supported Dukakis in 1988, think again. I proudly wore my “Greeks for Bush” button to any and all GOC functions in Houston and nobody batted an eye. As a matter of fact, the mere fact that Dukakis did not engage his family or community’s assistance in the presidential race was an affront to all Greek-Americans who wanted to claim him as “one of our own.”
Quite a different mindset than JFK, who embraced his Catholicism and was revered by the RC’s in this country. Funny how that worked out. Maybe Dukakis realized that we Orthodox Christians (a) were not a big enough voting bloc for him and (b) don’t like being dissed by a guy who flouts Church doctrine.
Matter of fact, that goes for Stephanopoulos as well. It seems that liberals who happen to be Greek Orthodox are the least like those of us regular folks around here. They seem to be “above it all” and a bit on the snotty side.
I guess it’s part of being a liberal – or, as I like to put it, on the Dark Side of the Force.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 24, 2009 @ 12:08 pm - March 24, 2009
http://pope-ratz.blogspot.com/2007/06/benedict-xvis-handsome-private.html
#43, I think this is what #38 was referring to.
Comment by Chuck In Del — March 24, 2009 @ 1:58 pm - March 24, 2009
Sullivan became irrelvant for violating the reason he was once important. Sullivan once demonstrated that gay commentators could be relevant on other topics while still engaging traditionally gay issues such as gay marriage. But when Bush came out against DOMA Sullivan didn’t just state his disagreement. He reversed his own opinions on many previously held but completely unrelated issues such as the Iraq War and terrorism. This showed that his other opinions couldn’t be trusted because they were contingent on mutual support for gay marriage.
The very fact that made him interesting was proven a fraud.
Comment by MJ — March 24, 2009 @ 2:40 pm - March 24, 2009
I have to agree with most of the posters here. I was an avid reader until about 2004, when everything seemed to shift and just take a very bitter tone. I have quit reading for the most part, although ocassionally he will have a piece relevant to gay rights.
I didn’t know about any of his personal life, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it didn’t have some sort of influence. As a gay conservative, I almost always shut my mouth on a date or even when talking to close friends, since even what I would consider adult discussions or disagreements seem to devolve into name calling and condescenion when talking to liberals. I’m sure most here can relate to feeling like a minority within a minority. In fact the only guys I have ever successfully dated were ones who had no interest in politics.
I would agree with your assertion of following where the paychecks come from. Ann Coulter is spot on when she talked in the past of conservatives always being guest pundits or “surprise” best selling authors, but never hosts or mainstream commentators (Fox News excluded). Yet, every dying network coming in 4th place or major network losing half a million viewers per year or newspaper folding falls over itself making room on the editorial page for a “conservative” willing to criticize other conservatives. Can’t call Mr. Sullivan a socialist, he knows “conservatives” ready to throw other conservatives under the bus is a high demand market, and he seems to be one happy capitalist pig as of late
Last, does anyone find it odd he disallows comments on his blog? Seems very egomaniacal and “Fairness Doctrine” to completely eliminate any way to disagree with him in view of other readers. I would hope a true conservative would encourage dialogue with himself and others.
Comment by Tim — March 25, 2009 @ 4:21 am - March 25, 2009
#48, I think Sullivan reversed his opinion based on the actions of the Bush administration. Bush reversing his position on gay marriage to score political points, a horribly bungled war in Iraq and torture are all unrelated, but they can still cause a blogger like Sullivan to change his opinion.
I do not see it as a domino effect that since Bush backed DOMA that all of a sudden Sullivan bailed on Bush. Bush continuously did things that were unconservative at their base.
Comment by Chuck In Del — March 25, 2009 @ 12:24 pm - March 25, 2009
Peter #46
The marriage issue is what I heard was the cause and my first hearing about it was in the NE before his governor run. That and the kids not being raised Orthodox.
I didn’t mean to imply all Greeks supported him, sorry. It was an observation from Texas, where ethnicity trumps faith in many Orthodox parishes.
Now if the moderaters would approve the orginial comment as well as the one on BBQ we could have a serious discussion about important stuff like the best chicken fried steak in Texas.
Kevin
Comment by Kevin — March 25, 2009 @ 1:46 pm - March 25, 2009
Chuck,
Sullivan reversed his opinions because of Bush’s action on DOMA, not Iraq. Sullivan was on record supporting Iraq for years. DOMA obviously made Sullivan reevaluate the level of his support for Bush, fine. I suppose it could make some people change from a Bush supporter to an opponent, but this completely contradicts Sullivan’s entire premise until that point.
His premise was that gays have an interest in the larger issues independent of their interest in narrow gay issues, and further that the opinions on the larger issues were more important. Specifically he thought leftist gays were short sighted allying with multiculturist groups against western traditionalism because multiculturism is increasingly dominated by islamist fundamentalists and those who seek to coopt them. The anti-gay animus of these groups dwarfs anything found in western thought today, even including stormfront. This was the entire basis of his pro-Bush position. This isn’t a conservative position by the way, so calling him a conservative isn’t accurate.
Sullivan completely contradicted this position when he allowed Bush’s action on DOMA to influence his net position on Bush. To add insult to injury however, he changed his opinion on Iraq, which had nothing to do with DOMA. If you’re claiming independent data caused his to change his mind I think you’re seriously under informed. No changes in the Iraq circumstances ocurred in that time frame, and earlier negative outcomes he had addressed without changing his support. Bush may have done other things which bothered you or specific others, but that doesn’t translate to Sullivan. So why would anyone consider him a legitimate critic on Iraq when we know his opinion is contingent on support for gay marriage?
Comment by MJ — March 25, 2009 @ 2:31 pm - March 25, 2009
#51 – “It was an observation from Texas, where ethnicity trumps faith in many Orthodox parishes.”
Quite true. Mostly here in Houston, since we have a lot of 1st and 2nd generation Greek-Americans and a steady influx of immigrants. However, small cities like Austin and Waco are the reverse – more emphasis on faith vs ethnicity.
“(W)e could have a serious discussion about important stuff like the best chicken fried steak in Texas.”
IMHO, it would be Hickory Hollow here in Houston, or the Salt Grass Steakhouse. Both serve CFS that is simply to die for.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 25, 2009 @ 2:36 pm - March 25, 2009
Mark,
I understand Sullivans position of supporting Bush in fighting against islamic fundamentalism. But on domestic issues, gays have their own culture war going on with fundamentalists here. So he goes with Bush on foreign policy, great. Then the whole neocon policy blows up and things go horribly wrong. What is left to support?
I guess what I am saying is everyone has their limit, including myself. And Sullivan reached his. Not because some drunk liberal in a bar allegedly berrated him, but because there is little to be gained arguing gay issues to republicans. And to some of us, gay issues trump conservative dogma.
I have a tough time accepting the gay conservative theory that we support conservative politicians and policies while we have to continuously sit in the back of the bus when it comes to our issues. Where does one go in conservative circles to get gay equality? I would suggest it does not exist because the arguement to many non gay conservatives is equality is a code word for special rights. Is it progressives and liberals who are trying to ammend state constitutions defining marriage as a man and woman only?
Comment by Chuck In Del — March 25, 2009 @ 3:41 pm - March 25, 2009
MJ,
I can understand Sullivan supporting Bush in fighting islamic fundamentalism. But domestically, gays are fighting a fundamentalism here, and it is found in republican and conservative circles. So when DOMA came out followed by the Iraq war turning out to be ill planned and executed, what is one to do? Still support even though your premise has proved folly?
I guess what I am saying is everyone has their limits, including Sullivan and myself. I think his positions changed not because some drunk liberal in a bar allegedly berrated him, but because these past 8 years were supposed to be a triumph of conservatism with control of the congress and white house. We made it to the mountaintop, and the mountaintop was strip mined by republicans and conservatives who blew it at almost every turn.
I would just like to know where does one go in conservative circles to get support for gay equality? Is it progressives and liberals ammending state consitutions against gay marriage? I am sorry but how long does a gay conservative have to sit in the back of the bus to get even workplace equality? Or are we supposed to swallow the argument that equality is code speak for special rights? I am pretty sure that conservatives can multitask and help me with an issue while supporting the bigger issues. But we all know this will not happen with the current state of conservatism, or any state of conservatism for that matter.
Sorry, I tried the whole “premise that gays have an interest in the larger issues independent of their interest in narrow gay issues.” But meanwhile, as I worked to get Bush elected (the first term), conservatives in my state blocked equality at every turn as my husband of 20 yrs had to fire someone because he is gay. And if my husband didnt fire him, he himself would have been fired.
Comment by Chuck In Del — March 25, 2009 @ 4:13 pm - March 25, 2009
Chuck,
You wrote in liberal “gays are fighting a fundamentalism here”. You should know this translates to english as “I’m insane”. It may seem cute to blur the lines between people who resist altering millenia old institutions to suit you with people who want to tie you down and push stone walls over on you until you’re dead, but it isn’t amusing to anyone who takes the latter seriously.
Obviously anyone who hasn’t made the arguments Sullivan had supporting the war in Iraq can use it as a reason not to support Bush. But again, that isn’t what ocurred. Sullivan changed his support for the Iraq War because Bush supported DOMA. You may think the Iraq War was poorly planned and executed and this justified being against it. Sullivan did not and wrote many articles to that effect, until Bush announced support for DOMA.
Comment by MJ — March 25, 2009 @ 4:45 pm - March 25, 2009
[...] his comment to my post speculating why Andrew Sullivan made a hard left turn, Chuck in Del asks: I would just [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » How Did “Equality” Become Watchword of Gay Movement? — March 25, 2009 @ 6:20 pm - March 25, 2009
The problem is not conservatism, per se. The problem is that Christian fundamentalists and heterosexuals believe that their beliefs and sex acts are superior (when the exact opposite is true) and should get preferential treatment by the government. There is nothing conservative about this position.
I also consider heterosexuals to be spoiled children who won’t share a toy that some other kid wants even though they themselves have gotten it dirty.
Comment by Attmay — March 26, 2009 @ 10:07 am - March 26, 2009
I came to the same conclusion as Gay Patriot and wrote about it last year in my blog.
http://theobamamonitor.blogspot.com/2008/05/synchophant-explained.html
It part, I wrote, “One must first know that Andrew has lived for years in Washington, D.C. – a very liberal, Democratic city despite the presence of Republicans in power. To be a (1) conservative, (2) gay, and (3) a supporter of Republican presidents puts oneself in an extreme minority position. I know this because I was one with these same positions as well in D.C. during the same time period as Andrew.
For myself, it meant knowing that almost all of my gay friends and neighbors held political views diametrically opposed to mine. So I largely kept them to myself and hidden from them. For years now, Andrew has had no such luxury. He has been well-known for his public writings for years. I am quite certain that almost all of his friends, neighbors, and acquaintances knew of his politic views. This could not have been easy for him.
Why? Because I know the D.C. gay scene having lived among it for seven years, and it is nothing if not a pit of vipers. Their coldness and self-serving nature is legendary throughout the U.S. gay community. I am quite certain that Andrew was broadly ostracized and likely black-balled for his politics in the 80’s and 90’s. Keeping civil with them – let alone maintaining friends and relationships – could not have been easy.”
Comment by RBecker — March 31, 2009 @ 1:01 pm - March 31, 2009