Andrew Sullivan, Explained
[jackdied]
Jan 27 2005, 21:56 EST [updated Jan 27 2005, 22:17 EST]
If you are ever puzzled by Andrew Sullivan, the why is easy to explain: he is exactly like Bill O'Reilly.
wtf?! OK, they don't want the same things (frequently they want opposite things) but the reason
I don't like either of them is exactly the same. They have certain ends they prefer, with logical reasons
why they want those ends. They have certain means they are willing to employ, with logical defenses for
why those means are acceptable. But knowing all those things about them you cannot infer what they
would believe about any new thing or the means they would allow to pursue it. You can call it
moderation or subtlety; maybe I'm too stupid to see the unifying factor in their thinking. I don't
care. I find it off-putting to the point I can't stand either of them. How can you trust a broad spectrum opinionator when you can't know their opinion?
O'Reilly hates big government - except when it promotes teetotlers. Sullivan shakes hands with federalists -
but only when it means gay marriage somewhere (and with his other hand grasps for the bat labeled 'Judiciary').
I have good friends like these people. It doesn't mean I don't like them at all, it just means they make
poor pundits and guides. That is why I watched O'Reilly's show for a bit and had to stop. That is why
I read Sullivan's blog for a bit and had to stop. They do not pander or twist in the popular wind - they
just have views that are indistinguishable from rolling dice once and sticking to the outcome.
NB, actually I was being generous with the dice thing. How I actually think they operate is ends => means => principal. I'll tackle that behavior in a longer post about dying parties (I won't say which one).
