There’s The Liberal…

… and there’s The Stupid.

Sorry, Andrew Sullivan, I didn’t like you much before, I like you even less now. And the same for Newsweek. No good deed goes unpunished. A political bomb against Obama. Now some can say, what? The Kenyan, Muslim, Socialist and gay President. Great, Sullivan, great.

11 thoughts on “There’s The Liberal…

  1. TwinSwords

    I’ve got a lot of issues with Andrew Sullivan. Initially, of course, it was his enthusiastic promotion of the racist “scholarship” of Charles Murray — all the way back in the early 1990s. Then it was his declaration that liberals were traitors — enemies of the state — because they opposed Bush’s disastrous decision to invade Iraq. And to the present day, Sullivan continues to promote both Murray and the general theory that blacks are a kind of inferior subspecies to humans. Among his other faults: He’s an enthusiastic supporter of what conservatives call entitlement reform. That is, slashing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. As if those weren’t bad enough, he’s been an enthusiastic supporter of Ron Paul, proving his lack of moral intuition.

    But, apart from that considerable list of concerns, I’ve actually turned into something of a fan of his in recent years. It sounds, after that litany, ridiculous to say it, but he’s actually good on every other issue — and he’s one of the President’s most effective and persuasive supporters. Obama even singled Sullivan out for praise, recently.

    I don’t think his deploying the term “the first gay president” is intended to be “a political bomb against” Obama. Instead, I see it as a declaration of heartfelt approval and appreciation for the role Obama has played in advancing the gay rights agenda. Bill Clinton was called “the first black president.” I suppose this was a “political bomb against Clinton” among the Pig People of the GOP, the people who hate blacks. And likewise, the Pig People hate gays, and calling Obama “the first gay president” will only reinforce that hatred. But the Pig People weren’t going to vote for Obama, anyway, and I think it would be a mistake for us to try to tip toe around their neo-Confederate sensibilities. They are going to squeal like the pigs they are no matter what we do or say, no matter how hard we try to conceal our desire to do good or our pride in our accomplishments. The pigs know we’re better than them, that we have all the moral authority on our side, and they know of themselves that they are only motivated by hate and bigotry. If these facts provoke wingnuts to anger, so be it. We can’t hide the truth from them, and we shouldn’t try.

    We’re going down to these people, anyway. We might as well go down fighting.

    Reply
      1. TwinSwords

        LOL! I have finally started cutting back the hours. Not sure how long it’s going to last, though. Looks like you guys have been keeping the blog going!

        Reply
    1. Ocean Post author

      I didn’t know much about Sullivan until recent years. Generally speaking I’m very skeptic, suspicious if you want, of people who flip flop like that from one end to the other of the political spectrum. The volatility of opinion and inclinations is more telling than any given expressed position that they may have at the moment. Also the level of aggression and recalcitrant polarization is more problematic than good, even when it is favoring our side. We have the weakness of celebrating it, selfishly, foolishly, like enjoying a drug of addiction, which creates the illusion of pleasure. But it’s secretly a poison.

      I have a similar opinion, even when there are obvious differences in quality, about that blogger, Charles Johnson, who jumps to one side or the other and barks and bites viciously whomever he’s against at the time.

      In terms of the current article, or rather the title of the article and the colorful cover, sure, there are people who will only add one more reason to their already existent antipathy. But, as you know, there are always those people in the margins, undecided, with lots of ambivalence, and those are many, who can be turned off by this kind of thing.

      The difference between talking about Clinton as the first black president and this, is that anyone could tell Clinton wasn’t black, at least by the common appearance standards. However, no one knows for sure whether Obama could be gay or not. So it creates more doubts and rumors.

      You probably know how much of what we do is driven by emotions and unconscious motivations. Sometimes doubt is the only thing you need to create a feeling of discomfort about someone. Ask Fox News about that, how they do it. The more doubts and questions they place on the president the more likely people are going to feel less inclined to go vote for him. The best thing to do is to create a clear cut profile that people can either take or leave. But ambivalence always operates against.

      So, there, that was my reaction to this magazine cover. Unnecessary. And I have to question Sullivan’s judgment or even self awareness if he chose such title, especially if he was, like you say, trying to be supportive or even grateful to Obama.

      Reply
      1. ledocs

        Sullivan probably did not choose the title, the editors do that. At least, that’s how it works in newspapers. Still, I don’t take Andrew Sullivan seriously. I showed in the bhtv forums how he turned on a dime about John Mearsheimer, based upon the flimsiest possible evidence, evidence he did not even bother to read.

        Reply
        1. Ocean Post author

          Yes, I’ve heard about the titles in newspapers, but for some reason I don’t seem to register it. Perhaps because I find it doesn’t make sense that someone else will choose the title of an article that one writes. Or perhaps because I’m used to peer reviewed, scientific articles, where one chooses the title.

          Reply
    2. Steph

      I’m more mixed in my feelings about Sullivan and life is too short to read Newsweek, so I’m speaking something from a position of ignorance, but I agree that “first gay president” wasn’t intended to be a bomb, but a tribute and reference to “first black president” for Clinton.

      Reply
      1. Ocean Post author

        Oh, I don’t know, or even question what the intentions were. I just point out that for most people who look at a magazine cover, without even knowing what the article says, the result may be to cast a doubt about whether the president may be gay. And this is not a good time to go around with semi-liminal messages that can be counterproductive come election day.

        I also think that there is some incredible lack of taste or awareness when it comes to magazine covers. Like the breastfeeding mother of a gigantic three year old on Times Magazine. What are these people thinking?

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>