Moreover, The New Yorker’s George Packer does so in a way that makes Andrew Sullivan a little uncomfortable:
He is, in the terms of my article, a purist rather than a reformist, but his unhappiness with the movement is so great that it’s driven him into the arms of his exact opposite, Barack Obama, who is philosophically liberal and temperamentally conservative.
Excitable Andy responds:
It’s a little hard to know how to respond to such a perceptive critique. But, yeah, it’s true. Intellectually, I find so much of Obama’s substance domestically to be anathema. (This is not true of his tilt back toward realism and diplomacy in foreign policy, which could be seen as a return to conservative principles after Bush’s Wilsonianism). I haven’t sat through a single Obama speech without ideologically wincing at something. I fear that in the general election, his recourse to liberal tropes will begin to wear thin.
So why do I find myself still longing for him to win?
Because, I can’t see how domestic policy could become more statist and less responsible than the past eight years. Because I want to see such a record punished with electoral defeat for fear they still don’t know what they did wrong. Because I think Obama’s diplomatic skills and public relations brilliance could serve this country very well. And because of what Obama represents in our collective consciousness.
His candidacy is about renewing what America means to the world and to itself. It is about a collective cultural healing – especially on race. It is about representing the next generation and America’s less domineering but more inspiring place among nations. It is about transparency in government. It is about getting past this brutal cultural polarization for a while. It is about putting reason back into our discourse after the emotional manipulation of the Morris-Rove era. It is about ending torture, restoring Constitutional balance, and adding the power of words, of great words, to restore hope again.
Careful readers — as opposed to those who take Andy seriously — will have noted that Sully “can’t see how domestic policy could become more statist and less responsible,” but “find[s] so much of Obama’s substance domestically to be anathema” that he “ha[s]n’t sat through a single Obama speech without ideologically wincing at something.”
Sully “want[s] to see such a record punished with electoral defeat for fear they still don’t know what they did wrong.” Of course, George W. Bush is not up for punishment this year. Rather, it is Americans who do rather less well than Bush who will be on the receiving end of the policies that make Sully wince. And that’s before you consider that the crime of statist policies is to be punished with… more statist policies.
Sully “think[s] Obama’s diplomatic skills and public relations brilliance could serve this country very well.” He does not mention what diplomatic skills those are. Perhaps Obama picked them up in Indonesia when he was ten years old, or on his college vacation in Pakistan. Perhaps Sully is thinking of Obama’s continued floundering on Iran. As for the public relations brilliance, it is not especially difficult to convince Sully’s establishment media pals that the most liberal candidate in the race is the greatest thing since sliced bread. He has managed — by organizational skills, not PR — to defeat a rival who barely has more experience than his nearly non-existent tenure in the Senate and who would not have been considered a serious candidate herself had she not been married to Bill Clinton. He is currently in a statistical tie with John McCain (a candidate with a shaky base vote) when about 80% of adults think the country is on the wrong track. Some might call that underperforming, rather than brilliant.
What Sully’s mancrush boils down to his Obama’s face. But if we are going to take our lessons in American race relations from a Brit, we could just as easily pick Trevor Phillips, chairman of the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, who has accused Obama of exploiting our racial divide and warns that Obama could prolong, rather than heal the rift.ÂÂ
Sully is also stumbling toward this cycle’s mirage of hopeyness and changitude, conveniently forgetting that those he demonizes now were once “the man from Hope,” promising a “Third Way,” to be a “reformer with results”and a “uniter, not a divider.” This is a man with the political insight of Charlie Brown in football season.
And no bit of Sully babble would be complete without a dash of BDS, even though his hysterics in this regard run exactly contrary to his purported desire to get past “this brutal cultural polarization.”
As George Packer claims to have “learned a lot about conservatism agonistes from reading” Sullivan, it is no wonder Packer came to the conclusion that conservativism is brain-dead.
Did anyone else see the slanted watermark of “BONER” behind the text of Sullivan’s wordgasm?
You know . . . he should stop being such a lesbian and get on with it.
Sullivan claims to be looking forward to a return of reason, but I doubt he would recognize it if he saw it. He abandoned reason in favor of twisting truth to conform to whatever it is he is currently wishing for. A reasoned man would, at some point, recognize the problem with all facts conveniently fitting his narrative. Perhaps Andy thinks he is a prophet.
Because I want to see such a record punished
Andrew likes the doling of punishment. Barack does not. “Don’t punish Iran just because of their secret nuclear program. Don’t punish my daughter with a baby and/or VD. Don’t punish me because I belonged to a Whacko church for 20 years and gave them 20 g’s and mentioned them in my book. Hey it’s not my fault, my wife made me go. And she could crack my peanut-head with a simple twitch of her thighs. That’s why I never put my head down there – it ain’t cuz I’m afraid of the dark. You wanna talk about punishment? Talk to her.”
I may be paraphrasing
Ok. I got this far:
“This is not true of his tilt back toward realism and diplomacy in foreign policy, …”
So, appeasement, surrender and withdrawal are “realism”, now?
“RUN AWAY RUN AWAY” is not a foreign policy, Andy.
Punishment is the flip side of victimization. You made me a victim & now you’re gonna pay….! Whah Whah Whah! Omarosa/Michelle has this lissome gracile young smoothie by more than just the short hairs, and Sully’s lesbitard ethos lurks behind his hopeyness about BHO’s changeytude.
More than a dash, I think. St Andrew the Incontinent has always harbored a very strong case of BDS. What he seeks now is Personal vindication, as in all things about which he writes. Consider his ongoing fight with his catholosim, and you’ll see what I mean.
Sulivan doesn’t much care about additional statist policy… or anything else, for that matter, so long as he can feel himself and his prejudice… his hatred… vindicated. This is what Sullivan, in the end (pardon the unintentional pun) has always been about.
This is the same thing that Rachel Lucas wrote about the other day. There are people who are so disappointed in the Republican Party, who are so disappointed in those that the American people have elected, that they believe the best thing to do is inflict the worst on America so that the voters will wake up and elect a ‘true conservative’ who will then lead America out of the wrongness that it is in and into the clear light. Just like how the long night of Jimmy Carter led inevitably to the morning of Ronald Reagan.
There are a few problems with this kind of thinking:
(A) Reagan was a man, he wasn’t perfect. Please stop worshipping him, it isn’t healthy.
(B) Reagan is dead, he is not coming back. There is no Reagan out there waiting to deus ex machina his way onto the stage. You have to deal with the people we have.
(C) The country is not hard-right conservative, it is at most center-right. A hard-liner cannot get elected to the White House and if elected, couldn’t govern that way. Reagan, BTW, wasn’t a hard-liner and didn’t govern that way.
(D) There is something fundamentally evil about wishing your country ill so that you can gain a political victory.
(E) There is no guarantee that the election of Sen. Obama will lead to a conservative resurgence; it is just possible that the voting public in the middle would perceive these actions by conservatives as a pout and treat them accordingly – that is, not as a serious alternative.
Just one more thing – I find it appaling that a bunch of self-identified hard-nosed conservatives aren’t pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps (as they advise everyone else to do) and instead sit around wailing and gnashing their teeth, crying “Save us Obi-Ron! You’re our only Hope!” It’s appalling and pathetic.
The mental image of St. Andy being nailed by George Packer on the sofa will require much bleach to cleanse my minds eye.
O! fudge.
No, or only if you define a type of BDS inverse to the one we normally mention.
In the early days, when Sullivan was still posting in white-on-blue and begging for twenty grand to “pay his hosting charges”, he was in the main a Bush supporter, although he did not refrain from criticism where it was warranted. It was Bush’s tactic on the FMA, which Excitable Andy never understood (and still doesn’t), that caused him to shift over.
Regards,
Ric
Obama claims to represent change. In a way, it’s true. He represents a “change” back to the failed poicies of the past.
His economic policies are straight out of the 1960’s: gov’t -reregulation of industries, higher personal income, corporate, inheritance, Social Security AND capital gains & dividend taxes (in the name of “fairness” & regardless his admission that higher taxes lead to negative tax revenue & stagnant economic growth). His foreign policy is also a change, back to the failed policies of appeasment from the 1930’s.
Some “change”…..
Excitable Andy, or, the damage that Derrida wrought, or, after 200 years the English return.
I checked the Excitable Andy link and I found myself lost in a wilderness of pomposity @ gobbledygook -if Andy (Bluto) has a crush on Obama, that’s Ok, together with Chris Matthews they can do a funny openminded threesome – but the way he shows it is straight from Monty Python or from a Ionesco play. Where is my frsh salsa?
What Mikey NTH said except with more scorn and ridicule. Especially ridicule. Also, Newt Gingrich has a tiny penis.
In a post over at the pub I quoted James Piereson, the author of Camelot and the Cultural Revoltion, A href=”http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmVhMTllNzE0ODc5YTM5N2Y2OWJmZmE1NWQxMmVlZjc=”>describing why Obama to people like Andy.
Piereson describes JFK as a right-winger on foreign policy and a cautious centrist on domestic policy who captured the imagination of people who were ideologically closer to Lyndon Jognson for reasons of style over substance. The Democrats have been searching for the next JFK ever since.
Obama is ideologically a heavy-handed statist, but he attracts people like Andy who like his style. Obama also attracts some so-called libertarians (like Greenwald/Mona) who have been so embittered by BDS that they embrace anyone who the right dislikes. Andy seems to fall into this group as well.
Damn. I’ll try that link again.
[…] note with some amusement Karl at Protien Wisdom and George Packer, over at The New Yorker, each in their turn flaying St Andrew the […]
[…] Protein Wisdom – George Packer puts Andrew Sullivan on the couch and nails him [Karl] […]
“puts him on the couch and nails him”
Very homoerotic headline there…