The decent people have spoken! It's time to raise the bar!

Atrios is willing to allow certain Republicans to redeem themselves -- provided they oppose the Bush administration and provided their repentance is deemed sincere. However, no liberal tent is large enough for Andrew Sullivan! He will never be welcome.

Look, there are moderates and open minded Republicans whose opinions we can respect and whose opposition to the Bush administration is more than welcome, but Andrew Sullivan is not one of those people. Andrew Sullivan is one of those people who, as Charles Pierce has suggested, should simply be shunned by all decent people.
Admission to the exalted ranks of true Bush hatred is an honor, and not everyone need apply. There's a higher standard to be upheld, and Andrew Sullivan doesn't make the grade:
...In response to Matthew, it isn't all people who have come around that I object to (although, I'm admittedly a bit harsh on them at times if they're still up to the same old crap), it's McCarthyite posers I object to.
McCarthyite posers?

Might he be confusing Andrew Sullivan with David Brock?

posted by Eric on 09.07.04 at 08:08 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1412






Comments

I hate even to half-agree with Atrios, but he is at least semi-right about Sullivan. He's an intellectually dishonest demagogue.

Examples available if necessary.

MDP   ·  September 9, 2004 05:22 AM

I agree with everything Andrew Sullivan said about the fifth columnists and traitors on the Left that made Atrios hate him so, since Atrios is one of them. Atrios is right to fear another McCarthy, since a McCarthy would expose Atrios and the rest of his "comrades" for what they are, and deal with them accordingly.

I admire Andrew Sullivan, and independent-minded homosexual conservative who has spoken out against the Enemy both within and without in this War. He is the first blogger I ever read, and I continue to read him every day. He will always be on my blogroll. Atrios will never be.

I agree with Andrew Sullivan in condemning Bush for his perfidy in supporting the FMA. Unfortunately, thr alternative to Bush in this election is even worse, even much worse. I disagree with the recent turn Andrew Sullivan has taken in his justified anger toward Bush. At least we know where Bush stands. We have no idea where Kerry will stand the next time he opens his mouth, and neither does Kerry.

Remember how Sullivan quoted Orwell's remark that "Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi," implying that anti-war Leftists are guilty of a similar sin?

Even though I am (and was then) a Bush supporter who wholeheartedly agrees with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, I found the Orwell quote revolting and stupid. I happily discovered later that Orwell himself repudiated the argument after the war ended:

We are told that it is only people’s objective actions that matter, and their subjective feelings are of no importance. Thus pacifists, by obstructing the war effort, are ‘objectively’ aiding the Nazis; and therefore the fact that they may be personally hostile to Fascism is irrelevant. I have been guilty of saying this myself more than once. . . . And when this has been established, the accusation of conscious treachery is usually repeated. . . .

In my opinion a few pacifists are inwardly pro-Nazi, and extremist left-wing parties will inevitably contain Fascist spies. The important thing is to discover which individuals are honest and which are not, and the usual blanket accusation merely makes this more difficult. The atmosphere of hatred in which controversy is conducted blinds people to considerations of this kind. To admit that an opponent might be both honest and intelligent is felt to be intolerable. It is more immediately satisfying to shout that he is a fool or a scoundrel, or both, than to find out what he is really like. It is this habit of mind, among other things, that has made political prediction in our time so remarkably unsuccessful.

Why did Sullivan never mention Orwell's change of heart? Because he didn't want to spoil the earlier, politically convenient Saint George quote.

Like I said, Sullivan is an intellectually dishonest demagogue. More examples available if necessary.

MDP   ·  September 10, 2004 05:50 AM


December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits