-
An Alternate History of the Syrian Civil War
June 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
John Kerry, Secretary of Gaffes
April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio at CPAC
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Dumbest Weight-Loss Plan Ever
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Israel’s Hard-Right Turn That Wasn’t
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
I’m sure this post by Andrew Sullivan, about rumors that Elena Kagan is a lesbian, will get a lot of attention. Sullivan asks if Obama is “going to use a Supreme Court nominee to advance the cause of the closet”:
And can we have a clear, factual statement as to the truth? In a free society in the 21st Century, it is not illegitimate to ask. And it is cowardly not to tell.
Before evaluating this claim, it is worth delving into Sullivan’s history of pronouncements on this topic — which, as on so many other topics, is wildly erratic.
In 1991, Sullivan wrote in The New Republic:
In all the recent brouhaha over the “outing” of alleged homosexuals, one fallacy has remained virtually unchallenged. It’s the notion of a simple “closet” and the crude assertion that one is either in it or out of it. I know of no one to whom this applies. Most homosexuals and lesbians whose sexualities are developed beyond adolescence are neither “in” nor “out.” They hover tentatively somewhere in between. And most outings are not essentially about dragging someone out of anything. They are crude assertions about invariably complex people, which have very little to do with the nature of someone’s sexuality, and all to do with who controls the disclosure of it.
He went on to write in that piece that “there is little moral difference between a straight person forcing one to hide one’s identity and a gay person forcing one to declare it.”
In 1999, his view seemed to shift; he wrote a piece for The New York Times Magazine which included an “I don’t believe in outing” disclaimer but nonetheless went on to chastise, by name, a number of public figures who at that point had refused to declare their sexuality. His 1999 position:
There comes a point, surely, at which the diminishing public stigmatization homosexuality makes this kind of coyness not so much understandably defensive as simply feeble: insulting to homosexuals, who know better, and condescending to heterosexuals, who deserve better. It’s as if the closet has had every foundation and bearing wall removed but still stands, supported by mere expediency, etiquette and the lingering shards of shame, Does no one have the gumption to just blow it down?
In 2002, one of the public figures Sullivan had named in the NYT Magazine piece, Rosie O’Donnell, came out. Sullivan applauded her on his blog, and added: “I must say I feel bad for having prodded O’Donnell to do this before she was ready. She picked her time and made her case.”
Perhaps if Elena Kagan decides on her own time to come out (if indeed she is gay), Sullivan will once again applaud her, and regret having demanded that she answer questions about her sexuality before she felt comfortable doing so. The point here, though, is not about Elena Kagan, nor is it about whether or not public figures have an obligation to be forthright about their sexual orientation.
The point is that Andrew Sullivan is not a serious person. He has thought longer about this issue than any other — his book Virtually Normal remains the best thing ever written about the politics of homosexuality — and yet he can’t manage to maintain a consistent viewpoint. His views shift so easily because they are driven not by principle but by pique. If he can’t be taken seriously on the topic of homosexuality, the topic that is most important to him, it follows that he can’t really be taken seriously on any topic.
View all comments (51) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John Tabin
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/05/10/a-brief-history-of-andrew-sull
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Julian Sanchez| 5.10.10 @ 5:25PM
Er, isn't one possible explanation that things were, in fact, different 20 years ago?
John Tabin| 5.10.10 @ 5:43PM
That might explain things if his views had followed a straight line, but it doesn't really account for the zig-zagging.
Samuel| 5.10.10 @ 8:48PM
Don't forget, Sully outed Ed Koch too - in a pretty vicious personal attack.
Pingback| 5.10.10 @ 5:47PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : A Brief History of Andr links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.10.10 @ 6:31PM
Instapundit » Blog Archive » IS THE KAGAN NOMINATION OBAMA’S WAY TO “advance the caus links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
spool32| 5.10.10 @ 6:37PM
While I'm happy to pile on Sullivan, and my own experience with his writing is one of watching someone become increasingly willing to jump toward the edgy opinion regardless of where the instinct causes him to land, I don't think you've really demonstrated his zigzags on outing in this piece.
Travis McGee| 5.10.10 @ 7:40PM
Let's not talk about piling onto Sullivan. Please.
No neck| 5.10.10 @ 6:40PM
Perhaps what's happened is you've reversed the premises and the conclusion. Sullivan isn't worth taking seriously, so it's interesting to note his oscillations but nothing more than that.
Purpleslog | 5.10.10 @ 6:56PM
Who cares what he thinks or writes. Jeez.
Jose Mourinho| 5.10.10 @ 7:10PM
Apply Occam's razor to Sullivan: Why would a blogger (in an increasingly crowded cyber arena) be motivated to swing from one extreme to the other, thereby differentiating himself (and generating page views) from almost all other bloggers by virtue of his massive inconsistency?
Sullivan's seemingly wild shifts are a calculated (cyber)marketing tactic.
NS| 5.11.10 @ 12:33PM
Jose Mourinho, good luck with the Champions League Final !!!
Nicholas Kronos| 5.10.10 @ 7:19PM
Occam's Razor would say never explain by subtle cybermarketing what is more easily explained by emotional flakiness and/or chemistry.
John Rohan | 5.10.10 @ 7:45PM
It certainly isn't limited to homosexuality;
this is a self-described "conservative" who endorsed both John Kerry and Barack Obama (and became the quintassential "Obamaniac"). He calls himself Catholic, yet he wants to tear down the Church and replace it with a gay-friendly version.
He was for the Iraq war until it became unpopular; he was against universal health care until Obama brought up the topic.
I'm not sure why we should take this guy as an expert on anything. He doesn't have any special expertise or job experience; he went straight out of college to writing opinion pieces in a magazine.
Roy| 5.11.10 @ 1:15AM
I've always figured he was nothing more than an example par excellence of somebody who wanted to say "As a "[insert name of group that might not believe in leftist cliches - Catholic, "Tory", "conservative", "Republican", etc etc] I so happen to fully embrace the latest leftist cliche. Aren't I a brave, bold champion of dissent?" No, you're a believer in leftist cliches and the rest is fraudulent filler.
Carlos D| 5.10.10 @ 7:55PM
And to be fair...Andrew's rebuttal to this distorted piece.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlan.....loset.html
NS| 5.11.10 @ 12:51PM
@Carlos,
If this is what you call a rebuttal, then I have to say that you are very easily impressed.
Elena Kagan may have very well wanted to declare her sexual orientation but the Obama admin stopped her from doing so for its own reasons - she now has a choice - she can either let go the rarest of opportunities that a person can get or she can refuse the position out of indignation. We already know which way she went
Andrew Sullivan can sit in his ivory tower and babble about how homosexuality has become accepted more now than ever before - but he has NO IDEA of what went through Kagan's mind or her circumstances while accepting the offer. She observes American society as much as he does and has lived in it for a much longer time than Sullivan has.
Sullivan needs to respect her decision even if he cannot agree with it - and this is all assuming that she really IS gay !
He needs to remember his own advice - people will come "out" as per their own convenience and comfort and they cannot be coerced to do so. If he really believes in his own advice, he should have no problems with what is going on.
Elena Kagan has ZERO obligations to Sullivan or any one else in the gay community - she is an individual, a woman who can quite clearly think for herself.
Deal with it Sullivan... we live in a free country.
Bruce (GayPatriot) | 5.10.10 @ 7:56PM
Can we PLEASE absolve the world of the notion that Sullivan is a conservative. That is simply laughable.
Quilly Mammoth | 5.10.10 @ 7:57PM
Do you know for sure that each cite is actually from Sullivan's Brain? I mean the greatest One Man Blogger isn't actually one man, he has staff that know how his juice run...er, whatever...ick.
QM
QUilly Mammoth| 5.10.10 @ 8:00PM
From his retort:
"I have always found the coercive exposure of details of people's private sex lives to be appalling and cruel. "
I guess unless it's about Palin's Vajayjay.
jr565| 5.10.10 @ 8:14PM
somewhere around the time of the Iraq war's beginning Sullivan was a cogent, deliberate and (so I thought) morally consistent writer. Then he got sleep apnea and got hooked up to a sleep apnea machine and he is a rambling inconsistent queen who espouses 180 degree turnarounds in his viewpoints (to the point where his conservativism of doubt is essentially an extreme liberalism). Mere coincidence? or a sign that sleep apnea machines cause your brains to turn turn to mush? You decide.
And yes, Andrew we doubt your conservatism too. Instead of saying you believed in a conservativism of doubt, what you should have said is you doubt your conservativism. Because we sure do.
Is there a statute of limitations on how long someone can profess to be something they haven't been in ages? Because having people describe Sullivan as a "conservative" at this point is becoming extremely annoying.
Larry in Iowa| 5.10.10 @ 9:51PM
Upon seeing Elena Kagan's picture I thought perhaps she was a contestant on Britain Has Talent.
Pingback| 5.10.10 @ 10:18PM
American Glob » Blog Archive » Elena Kagan Has Three Problems links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
kalligulla| 5.10.10 @ 10:26PM
Are you people reading the same blog i read? You simply can't be. Since when is consistency of thought something to be admired? How is it possible to engage fully( as fully as one can which fluctuates) to engage fully in one's life, to live the 'observed' life without there being some changes and evolution over time?
Anyone who is surprised that Sullivan calls himself a conservative simply does not read The Daily Dish regularly. From reading his blog daily, i have surmised that the kind of conservatism that Andrew embraces (heavily influenced by British philosopher Michael Oakeshott) places heavy emphasis on constant engagement with empirical reality. Staying as close as possible to the ground and making ones decisions based on careful and patient considering of empirical,measurable and verifiable FACTS(a word not popular among'st modern day 'conservatives') and taking in as many points of views as possible before deciding the best course of action.
I think Andrew sees the conservative approach as one that's primarily concerned with the business of governance, with special emphasis on placing a skeptical eye on the role of institutions as their natural tendency is to self- perpetuate. So he's a small government guy in that sense as opposed to the 'i hate small government' brain dead zombie chants that characterize the modern day GOP.
The above responses simply point to the fact that mr sullivan is waaay ahead of you guys. How could having the same opinions one had ten years ago possibly be a desirable thing?
Take the war in Iraq. Andrew's support was based on his reaction to 9/11 and the percieved/real threat from islamist terrorists and testimony from credible generals like Colin Powell that pointed to the fact that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. Of course we all now know that all that Niger stuff was a pile of crock, complete with forged signatures and all.
He also had no way of knowing how incompetently run and bungled both wars would end up being. Given new revelations of the mendacity that was employed by Rumsfeld and co to justify the war(not to mention the use of torture which is illegal under UNITED STATES law for those of you who disdain Geneva) how could one not change ones mind about occupation?
Also, why is it ok to ask Barrack Obama for his birth certificate but not Trig Palin's birth certificate? Maybe it's tacky and even crazy but just produce the damn thing and get it over with right?
The idea that Sullivan moves to extremes in order to generate page views is utterly ridiculous and one of the many personal attacks that this thread is just dripping with. No one has tackled any of Sullivan's so called 'inconsistencies' with any depth. It's just the usual attacks on his persona.
Quite revealing don't you think?
Usually, if people have substantive critiques, they focus on those. If, like most of this thread, they don't, then you get quotes like.........
'Let's not talk about piling onto Sullivan. Please'
'One Man Blogger isn't actually one man, he has staff that know how his juice run...er, whatever...ick.'
'Then he got sleep apnea and got hooked up to a sleep apnea machine and he is a rambling inconsistent queen who espouses 180 degree turnarounds in his viewpoints '
Really pathetic stuff guys. You call this wit?How is this substantive in any way?
Reminds me of the quote about not getting into a battle of wits with opponents that have no weapons.
Nick| 5.10.10 @ 11:37PM
Why are you posting as your hero, Mr. Sullivan?
bluecollarbytes| 5.11.10 @ 7:30AM
Thanks Mr Sullivan, for that defense. You might include your obsession with yellow tabloid journalism next time you make the rounds pushing your Palin- 'pregnancy ' slander.
John Rohan | 5.11.10 @ 1:07PM
1. You fail to offer a third option - that demanding to see both Obama and Trig Palin's birth certificates are both paranoid lunacy. But at least Obama is the President; Sarah Palin holds no office anymore at all.
2. If Sullivan is really "conservative" how do you explain his 180 degree turn on universal health care? He used to rail against it, and constantly told us horror stories about his dealings with the NHS in the UK. Then he falls in love with Obama, and kept writing "pass the damn [health care] bill", over and over and over.
NS| 5.11.10 @ 1:15PM
@Kalligula,
Please put down the koolaid - and while you are at it, try to get off your moral high horse - you exemplify one of the main reasons why I QUIT reading Sullivan - all his moral preening is but a facade
From reading his blog daily, i have surmised that the kind of conservatism that Andrew embraces (heavily influenced by British philosopher Michael Oakeshott) places heavy emphasis on constant engagement with empirical reality. Staying as close as possible to the ground and making ones decisions based on careful and patient considering of empirical,measurable and verifiable FACTS(a word not popular among'st modern day 'conservatives') and taking in as many points of views as possible before deciding the best course of action.
Constant engagement with empirical reality ?? This is the same guy who was digging around for Trig trutherism from day one... I am sure Michael Oakeshott would have admired that piece of "investigative" journalism. He revealed an ugly vindictiveness against Sarah Palin which showed how DEVOID he was of any basic decency let alone morality.
You see what you want to see in Sullivan - i would nt call it empirical reality.
How close to the ground did your wonderful Sullivan keep his ear when Scott Brown won the election in MA ? Where was his wonderful sense of empirical reality then, when EVERY poll showed people opposing health care "reform" ?
How Oakshettian is it to impose individual mandates on people to buy a service that they are not willing to out of their own free will ?
Surely, you jest.
He also had no way of knowing how incompetently run and bungled both wars would end up being. Given new revelations of the mendacity that was employed by Rumsfeld and co to justify the war(not to mention the use of torture which is illegal under UNITED STATES law for those of you who disdain Geneva) how could one not change ones mind about occupation?
It is exactly for ignorant people like you Peter Wehner has a devastating take down of Sullivan over his Iraq war prevarications. It goes into his support of the war EVEN if WMD were not to be found. Blaming this on Bush's disastrous prosecution was a convenient excuse for this extremely dishonest man.
There has never been a perfect war - and to think that America would have one in the Middle East was pure fantasy
This was the same man, who so shamelessly rooted for the surge to fail and was constantly whining about the troops not having retreated already.... he had ZERO concerns over what would have happened to Iraq but for the surge.
Iraq today is the only democracy in the ME with a chance to grow better - it all happened inspite of dishonesty and cowardice of men like Sullivan
The idea that Sullivan moves to extremes in order to generate page views is utterly ridiculous and one of the many personal attacks that this thread is just dripping with. No one has tackled any of Sullivan's so called 'inconsistencies' with any depth. It's just the usual attacks on his persona.
As though your Highness has the humility to admit that Sullivan is a deeply flawed man if we didnt attack his "persona"
Reminds me of the quote about not getting into a battle of wits with opponents that have no weapons.
You remind me of how liberal jackasses so easily expose your vapid ignorance.
TallDave | 5.10.10 @ 11:35PM
This is easily explained by the fact Andrew actually writes almost nothing that appears in his blog or books.
Come on, be fair. You can't really expect nineteen staff writers to maintain consistent messaging, can you?
Pingback| 5.10.10 @ 11:37PM
Conventional Folly » Does Kagan’s sexuality really matter? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
wtf | 5.10.10 @ 11:38PM
testimony from credible generals like Colin Powell that pointed to the fact that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons.
Heh. Someone is not really remembering things very well. Andrew, is that you?
Pingback| 5.10.10 @ 11:40PM
Does Kagan’s sexuality really matter? | The Moderate Voice links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim*| 5.11.10 @ 12:07AM
Kagan will be grilled about her Harvard Law military recruiter flap and The Solomon Amendment litigation .
Her legal council records from The Clinton Administration will be accessed along with her SG record in The Obama Administration.
There's already talk.
Aaaaand , We Tea Party Rebels will Remember In November.
Only Turncoat RINO Specter will change his " No" vote on SG Kagin to a "Yes " Vote out of his loser political desperation not to get tossed out of his Senate Gig.
That leaves Kagan 30 in The Hole ,before the confirmation process starts.
m00se| 5.11.10 @ 8:43AM
Sully is a conservative in the same way lots of stoners are libertarian. They want access to their weed. Sully just wants to be left alone to be gay and lecture everyone else on their faults.
In another day he would have been an Episcopal priest.
whoissully| 5.11.10 @ 8:58AM
Who is Andrew Sullivan anyway? Isn't he a Bristol Palin blogger or something?
Pingback| 5.11.10 @ 4:03PM
Nightly Ramble Tuesday links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
kalligulla| 5.11.10 @ 5:16PM
Scott Brown was a fluke. It's intellectually dishonest to flaunt his election without acknowldeging the failure of the tea party movement to materialise the same success in NY-23. Remember that one? The one that was supposed to be the symbol of the emerging power of the tea party movement.?
Talking to you people is like playing a guitar solo to an audience of goats and getting mad when they don't applause at the end.
Pingback| 5.12.10 @ 1:38AM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : A Brief History of Andrew … | Fashion Designer links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.12.10 @ 4:52AM
A Smiley Download Can Save Your Love Relationship | X-Box Carrying Cases links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.12.10 @ 6:06AM
Hosting a php in a text area type thing… I don’t know what to call it…? | BingSite links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: