« Gotta Have Faith | Main | What About Rumsfeld »

The End of Sullivan

Now you can tell Andrew Sullivan's really off the reservation:

The fact is: the GOP is using an attack on members of their own families to get a few votes in rural parts of swing states. They've used race in the past to achieve this kind of effect. Now gays are the new blacks.
And then:
Yes: but it has long been a tactic of those who oppose civil rights to argue that they don't. Those opposed to education integration denied that they were against black civil rights - they just wanted separate but equal education for both blacks and whites. Those who opposed inter-racial marriage said exactly the same thing - since blacks and whites were equally constrained by the anti-miscegenation laws, there was no discrimination, etc. It wasn't that Bull Connor opposed civil rights. It's just that he had a different conception of civil rights than his opponents!
The Republican Party really is a fairly big tent in a lot of respects, but you're certainly not allowed to state that the GOP has been known to win elections by pandering to racism, hint that Saint Barry's opposition to the Civil Rights Act might have been anything other than a pure case of constitutional scruples, or acknowledge that present-day cultural conservatism is the lineal descendent of the Dixiecrat apartheid politics of yesteryear. That'd be like admitting that the New Deal was largely misguided regulatory schemes . . . well, I won't say it.

July 16, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8345662dd69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The End of Sullivan:

» Off the Reservation in Various Ways... from Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)
Matthew Yglesias watches Andrew Sullivan not only go off the reservation, but start burning farmsteads up and down the entire Upper Missouri Valley: matthew: The End of Sullivan: Now you can tell Andrew Sullivan's really off the reservation: The fact i... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 16, 2004 5:52:24 PM

» The Center-Left and Sociobiology from Gene Expression
Via Sock Thief, Matt Yglesias points out this excellent article by Melvin Konner in the Prospect: As the new field of sociobiology has emerged during the past quarter century, it has met with firm and unrelenting opposition from prominent liberal... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 22, 2004 12:39:29 PM

» The Center-Left and Sociobiology from Gene Expression
Via Sock Thief, Matt Yglesias points out this excellent article by Melvin Konner in the Prospect: As the new field of sociobiology has emerged during the past quarter century, it has met with firm and unrelenting opposition from prominent liberal... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 22, 2004 12:41:14 PM

» The Center-Left and Sociobiology from Gene Expression
Via Sock Thief, Matt Yglesias points out this excellent article by Melvin Konner in the Prospect: As the new field of sociobiology has emerged during the past quarter century, it has met with firm and unrelenting opposition from prominent liberal... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 22, 2004 12:42:42 PM

» The Center-Left and Sociobiology from Gene Expression
Via Sock Thief, Matt Yglesias points out this excellent article by Melvin Konner in the Prospect: As the new field of sociobiology has emerged during the past quarter century, it has met with firm and unrelenting opposition from prominent liberal... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 22, 2004 12:45:25 PM

» The Center-Left and Sociobiology from Gene Expression
Via Sock Thief, Matt Yglesias points out this excellent article by Melvin Konner in the Prospect: As the new field of sociobiology has emerged during the past quarter century, it has met with firm and unrelenting opposition from prominent liberal... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 22, 2004 1:21:53 PM

» The Center-Left and Sociobiology from Gene Expression
Via Sock Thief, Matt Yglesias points out this excellent article by Melvin Konner in the Prospect: As the new field of sociobiology has emerged during the past quarter century, it has met with firm and unrelenting opposition from prominent liberal... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 22, 2004 1:29:45 PM

» The Center-Left and Sociobiology from Gene Expression
Via Sock Thief, Matt Yglesias points out this excellent article by Melvin Konner in the Prospect: As the new field of sociobiology has emerged during the past quarter century, it has met with firm and unrelenting opposition from prominent liberal... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 22, 2004 1:30:43 PM

» The Center-Left and Sociobiology from Gene Expression
Via Sock Thief, Matt Yglesias points out this excellent article by Melvin Konner in The American Prospect: As the new field of sociobiology has emerged during the past quarter century, it has met with firm and unrelenting opposition from prominent... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 22, 2004 1:44:46 PM

» The Center-Left and Sociobiology from Gene Expression
Via Sock Thief, Matt Yglesias points out this excellent article by Melvin Konner in The American Prospect: As the new field of sociobiology has emerged during the past quarter century, it has met with firm and unrelenting opposition from prominent... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 22, 2004 2:31:17 PM

» The Center-Left and Sociobiology from Gene Expression
Via Sock Thief, Matt Yglesias points out this excellent article by Melvin Konner in The American Prospect: As the new field of sociobiology has emerged during the past quarter century, it has met with firm and unrelenting opposition from prominent... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 22, 2004 4:21:40 PM

» The Center-Left and Sociobiology from Gene Expression
Via Sock Thief, Matt Yglesias points out this excellent article by Melvin Konner in The American Prospect: As the new field of sociobiology has emerged during the past quarter century, it has met with firm and unrelenting opposition from prominent... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 22, 2004 6:21:28 PM

Comments

I hope that beneath your snark comment on the New Deal that you recognize that matters of human and civil rights are of a fundatmentally different character than regulatory issues for business, and that racism and discrimination are truly dangerous to a democratic republic founded on the principle of equal justice for all.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 16, 2004 2:24:17 PM

Yes, Jim, I do.

Posted by: Matthew Yglesias | Jul 16, 2004 2:31:00 PM

> the GOP is using an attack on members of
> their own families to get a few votes in
> rural parts of swing states.

Does anyone know what Sullivan means by this? Is he implying that gays were ever welcome under the Republican tent (since 1880 or so anyway)? I think the evidence on the record is strongly against that, Log Cabin Republican (sic) or no.

Or does he mean literal attacks on family members, such as Cheney's daughter? Here again Republicans with gay family members must have long ago decided to sell their souls to the devil on that situation.

So what does he mean?

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer | Jul 16, 2004 2:42:31 PM

"They've used race in the past to achieve this kind of effect. Now gays are the new blacks."

Well, if the gays also become off-limit, there will be not many targets left except the French (AS would of course approve).

Posted by: amusedfrog | Jul 16, 2004 2:47:46 PM

Surely he means real members of immediate, extended and figurative families. Defined thusly, every family has someone gay in it. And of course there have always been gay republicans...

Posted by: jonnybutter | Jul 16, 2004 2:48:52 PM

You know what though - fuck andrew sullivan. His opposition to the FMA was the only good reason I could think of for supporting it (i'm being sarcastic). It's a bit funny that the same people he castigated as treasonous, depraved, cowards, uninterested in national security, etc - are the same ones who had the guts to stand up for his civil rights. if there had been a compromise amendment that banned only Andrew Sullivan's right to marriage - i'd been singing with the Santorum choir.

Seriously though, it's helpful to go back to the fall of 2002 to understand what i'm talking about. i compiled a list of andy's greatest pre-Iraq hits (i.e., ruthlessly vile quotes). You can see them here.

I repeat - fuck andrew sullivan.

Posted by: Publius | Jul 16, 2004 2:49:00 PM

Don't get the New Deal joke...

And was wrong about Sullivan, who appears to have taken the FMA debate to heart. I suspect he is irrevocably burning some bridges.
...
I compared the current GOP to Bull Connor and Lester Maddox recently, but I really didn't mean racism or homophobia in themselves, tho it is certainly present in some segments of the party. Especially since the South has hijacked the party. When I grew up the GOP had some control of Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and California. Those states have not changed as much as the party has changed. I meant thuggishness, tactics, angry attitudes, a sense of disenfranchisement.

Communists, Anarchists,Jews, Catholics, academia, peaceniks, liberal media....the list goes on. I do not believe this is simply about homosexuality forbidden in scripture. This is about people who need to feel oppressed by an unfairly empowered minority. Solve one problem, they will find another enemy.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 16, 2004 2:49:44 PM

I'm pretty sure our young blogger also recognizes that, while the price controls thing may not have worked out, the Works Progress Administration, the Public Works Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Social Security Act, etc. were not misguided 'regulatory' schemes.
Hmm, maybe this is some more of that famous deadpan Yglesias humor and I just missed it....

Posted by: The Navigator | Jul 16, 2004 2:49:57 PM

Navigator: If I had wanted to say that the New Deal was entirely misguided regulatory scheme what I would have written was "the New Deal was entirely misguided regulatory schemes" but that's not what I wrote, so it seems reasonable to infer that I meant it was largely, but not entirely, misguided regulatory schemes.

Social security, in particular, is currently thought of as the major New Deal program, but it wasn't actually a very large program at the time of its enactment. It was only after changes made during later administrations that it became the social insurance juggernaut we know and love today.

Posted by: Matthew Yglesias | Jul 16, 2004 2:57:31 PM

Publius-
Well done. I'd almost forgotten what an arrogant ass Sullivan was around the build-up to the war.

Posted by: Brad Reed | Jul 16, 2004 3:07:22 PM

> I suspect he is irrevocably burning
> some bridges.

There were never any bridges. They may have appeared to be bridges to Sullivan, but in fact they were lobster traps.

Or, to put it in the terms of the warbloggers: Andrew Sullivan was a useful idiot for the neocons.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer | Jul 16, 2004 3:07:47 PM

I think Andy is being misunderstood here. This is a fashion comment -- he's saying that being gay is "the new black," i.e. timelessly fashionable.

Posted by: praktike | Jul 16, 2004 3:16:32 PM

"I meant it was largely, but not entirely, misguided regulatory schemes."

Uh-oh.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 16, 2004 3:19:51 PM

In my opinion, anyone who thinks that Sullivan won't vote Republican is kidding themselves.

Other than their stance on gays he's a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, and at the end of the day he'll vote that way and return to his log cabin.

Posted by: the bachelor | Jul 16, 2004 3:20:24 PM

btw, nice work, publius, thuogh it is akin to shooting fish in a barrel.

Posted by: praktike | Jul 16, 2004 3:30:28 PM

MY: "I meant it was largely, but not entirely, misguided regulatory schemes."

Sounds like some more reading is in order for MY on the depth of economic dispair and business irresponsibility in the 1930's.

A more apt summary would sound something like:

FDR largely saved capitalism in the US from a socialist future brought by popular discontent related to the failure of the conservative business and political leadership to address lack of work opportunities, economic disparity and structural checks and balances on economic interests.

Perhaps a master's degree in 20th century American history would be a good tonic.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 16, 2004 3:41:17 PM

Sigh. The New Deal went well beyond some minor "regulatory issues for business," seriously threatened economic liberty, and caused significant human suffering by extending the depression and delaying the rise of rates of economic growth. Perhaps if it is said often enough, it will eventually be recognized that economic rights just are human and civil rights.

Posted by: Will Wilkinson | Jul 16, 2004 3:41:19 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sounds like some more reading is in order for MY on the depth of economic dispair and business irresponsibility in the 1930's.

First of all, what exactly do you mean by "business irresponsibility?" Secondly, what does the "depth of economic dispair"[sic] have to do with whether or not the majority of FDR's schemes were ineffective and poorly thought through? Do you think the efficacy of programs isn't important, just as long as the intentions are right and the perceived need is great?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.10
Comment: My Public Key is at the following URL:
Comment: http://www.alapite.net/pgp/AbiolaLapite.txt

iD8DBQFA+DK/OgWD1ZKzuwkRAgcxAJ9Cr926R9qWaCv32BcE9yX+KrB52QCff2cC
EUyFnxHWa2hQ89h3cSNTt7E=
=1qb/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Posted by: Abiola Lapite | Jul 16, 2004 3:56:11 PM

>When I grew up the GOP had some control of Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and California

Last I checked, three of those four states had Republican governors ... and Illinois was held by a governor for a while.

Granted, Schwarzennegger and Pataki differ from the party line on a bunch of issues.

Posted by: niq | Jul 16, 2004 4:27:12 PM

"Perhaps a master's degree in 20th century American history would be a good tonic."

If you want to judge the effectiveness of the New Deal, I think a master's degree in economics would be far more valuable than a master's degree in history.

Matt: Questioning the New Deal doesn't place you as far off the liberal reservation as your questioning of the protection of endangered species.

Posted by: Xavier | Jul 16, 2004 4:31:49 PM

Matt may be technically correct, but if the first thing someone says about the New Deal is that it was largely misguided regulatory policies, I think that misses the forest from the trees. I wouldn't talk about the New Deal in a historic context by focusing on the specific policies passed within a specific time period. Not that that's the first thing Matt would say about the New Deal outside the context of dumping on Andrew Sullivan.

Posted by: Shankar D | Jul 16, 2004 4:34:40 PM

The New Deal was about three things:

1) Bold, persistent experimentation
2) Hope
3) Saving the banking system

Posted by: praktike | Jul 16, 2004 4:46:51 PM

"Matt: Questioning the New Deal doesn't place you as far off the liberal reservation as your questioning of the protection of endangered species." ...Xavier

Absolutely correct, and terrible.

"Last I checked, three of those four states had Republican governors"

Yeah, I wavered over this for a while. Was thinking of Senators Javits, Rockefeller, Edmund Brooke; and the fact that these haven't been in Presidential play for a while. But then I did think of the Governors.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 16, 2004 4:52:11 PM

Well, Matt, since you wrote into the comments section, why don't you list exactly which regulations you think are misguided? I don't think you can back up your statement.

As a historian with a solid economics background, I can only think of one New Deal law that was truly misguided (AAA). Even the NIRA contained elements that Brad DeLong wouldn't reject (labor rights, public works). Public works, relief, deposit insurance, securities regulation, the right of workers to organize, old age pensions... all these are generally accepted by the non-libertarian majority... and that includes lots of smart economists.

Posted by: AWC | Jul 16, 2004 4:58:00 PM

I like reading Sullivan. I'm going to vote for Dubya. But for actual, fun Sully-bashing, please checkout Sullywatch

http://sullywatch.blogspot.com/

Posted by: SullyFan | Jul 16, 2004 5:21:28 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.