Is Sullivan Losing It?
Is Sullivan Losing It? - I know what it feels like.
The political party that you thought reflected your views, at least in most areas, betrays you in some other areas that also matter a lot to you.
I was there, about 12 years ago. George Bush had raised taxes. The GOP in Washington had abandoned the barricades on taxes, and sold a nice chunk of the Reagan Legacy down the river. Worse - to my politics, anyway - the GOP in Congress went along with wave after wave after wave of gun control legislation (even as they were perfectly happy to accept the money and votes of the millions of American gun owners).
So I left. I joined the Libertarian Party in 1994. I stayed until about 1999, when I realized that my best bet for a better America was to change a party I generally agree with, rather than try to convince Americans to come over to a party that I increasingly thought was wrong on other issues that mattered to me (which is a post for later in the week).
Andrew Sullivan, the gay, catholic British conservative columnist, author and uberblogger, is so upset about the GOP's stance on gay marriage that he's trying to rationalize a Kerry/McCain ticket:
Here's a question worth asking: whatever John Kerry's record, could he afford in office to be weak on terror? Wouldn't he be obliged to continue Bush's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan and even, as he has already promised, actually increase troop levels in those countries?
Obliged is a mighty strong word. In short, no. Kerry has shown us that he doesn't recognize the concept of "obligation".
But the real question is, would McCain give Kerry religion on national security?
John McCain knows Kerry and says he doesn't believe he'd be "weak on defense."
John McCain is sorely lacking in judgement in many key areas.
He knew McCain-Feingold would get the money out of politics - and it's done wonders, hasn't it?
Kerry might not be "weak on defense", but he'd certainly be weak on the War on Terror, (that's another post for this week). If Sullivan doesn't get the distinction, he'd better. Fast.
Sometimes, a Democrat has to be tougher than a Republican in this area - if only to credentialize himself.
There's the pesky matter of the Democrat Base, though - the part that thinks being strong on defense is being weak on democratitude.
I can certainly conceive of Richard Holbrooke being a tougher secretary of state than Colin Powell. I'm not yet convinced and want to hear much more from Kerry. But I'm persuadable. Four more years of religious-right social policy and Nixonian fiscal policy is not something I really want to support.
That's what it all comes down to, doesn't it?
Like a lot of Republicans, I have trouble with Bush's fiscal triangulation; he gave up a lot of conservative principle to push through an aggressive agenda on defense. Did he have to? Maybe not, and it's why I'm supporting nothing but fiscal absolutists in the Congressional elections this year.
Those are separate topics, though. The big one is this; in a colossal rage over the Gay Marriage amendment - an idea with which I disagree, by the way, but whose political rationale I completely understand - Sullivan is trying to convince himself that John McCain could drag Kerry to the light on defense.
Just the way Dan Quayle (much more conservative than George HW Bush) dragged his boss to the right. Just the way George HW Bush "moderated" Ronald Reagan (remember that, from the '80 campaign?) The way Al Gore got Bill Clinton to lisp and declaim ponderously...
The idea that tacking on an applique figurehead like McCain would make John Kerry, on any substantial level, a responsible choice on defense (or any issue) is absurd. That a powerful columnist like Sullivan entertains the idea at all shows that he's just as emotionally debilitated by one issue as I was, 12 years ago.
I regretted my decision. But my decision didn't run the risk of helping a worthless fop like John Kerry into the Oval Office.
Posted by Mitch at
March 23, 2004 05:00 AM
