I would comment extensively on the recent "outing" of Andrew Sullivan as a declared Kerry supporter, but Ace of Spades is all over the topic like white on rice. Just keep scrolling. Ace called this well over a month ago, and deserves all the credit.
What I have seen in Sullivan over the last two years has been nothing short of appallingly shallow. He started out as one of the most impassioned advocates of intervention in Iraq. But over the last year, Sullivan has been executing a careful withdrawal (I would add, with no pun intended, that it has been an admirably performed rear-guard action on his part).
I also note the harsh reality that, while Sullivan wrote in the Advocate that his flip was entirely attributable to Bush's support of the FMA, Sullivan's blog has been increasingly hyping problems in Iraq. In other words, it looks like he's building up a pretext.
But we now all know that, for Sullivan, it's not about the war. It's about his wish to get married to his boyfriend.
Well, that's all fine and good, and I wish him well. SWLiP is actually moderately in favor of gay marriage. We'll see how long it lasts after the first "gay divorces" start coming in, racking up the attorneys' fees and court costs, and when Sullivan or some other high-powered gay man has to pay his first alimony check. But all in all, I'm very much in the camp of live and let live.
However, the Islamists are not in the camp of live and let live. They very much intend to kill us all. And whatever they would do to us "infidels," they would do worse to openly gay men like Sullivan.
So I'm in favor of preserving Western Civilization first, and putting some of these culture war issues on the back burner for the time being. Sullivan apparently feels otherwise; that he's willing to put Western Civilization at risk over his feelings on gay marriage. That is an incredibly selfish position to take.
How do I know that he's willing to put Western Civilization at risk? Because a Bush loss would be perceived by the Islamists as a victory, just like they have interpreted the loss of Aznar in Spain as a victory. It would only embolden them to take more steps against us. And America would be in danger of falling into a malaise that would make the seventies look like a picnic.
But the bigger problem I have with Sullivan's waffling and his obfuscations has to do with something which I take very seriously:
Like many of us, he advocated a war. Unlike many of us, he's trying to disown the war he advocated.
When you advocate a war, you cannot shrink from it, nor shirk the responsibility to see it through. War is a tough business, and things go wrong more often than they go right. When you go to war, you cannot wilt at the sight of bad news anymore than a soldier can afford to wilt at the sound of gunfire. Anything else and you cannot be counted on as a serious person.
I'm reminded of the anecdote about President Lincoln's meeting with a group of governors, all of whom had forcefully advocated war with the South. The governors protested to Lincoln that they couldn't afford to call up more regiments for the Union. Lincoln chastised them for lacking the moral courage to pay the price for the war they had so heartily advocated.
If Lincoln's presidency had been judged by the first three years of the Civil War, it would have necessarily been declared a failure. But Lincoln had something that Sullivan lacks: Courage.
Recent Comments