Wow.
Why does Andrew Sullivan call himself a conservative again?
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Wow.
Why does Andrew Sullivan call himself a conservative again?
{ 12 comments }
Because there’s more money in being the gay, liberal “conservative” that other liberals can like (and point to as an example) than in being just another gay liberal.
Jesse, I raise my frosty mug o’ lager to you in salute for taking all my thunder.
I get tired of the endless Sully-bashing that goes on in some corners of the blogosphere, but I do agree that he sort of blew it 2 years ago when it was so completely obvious that just because he was angry with Bush about his support of the FMA–which by the way will never be ratified in a million years–he suddenly did a 180 on 75% of what he’d been saying for almost 4 years.
That sort of thing is very hard to take.
Jesse,
That was awesome.
‘Cause otherwise he’d be just another moonbat.
I have to say, I’m pleased with myself for deleting him from my bookmarks before it became popular.
Well if you are talking UK Conservative its because David Cameron, the new Tory Leader has gone all slushy in his speech about gay marriage.
Kevin,
why do you call yourself one?
Religious beliefs aren’t a necessity for conservatism. It’s a political ideology. See “du Toit, Kim”.
What “conservatism” is is hard to say. The closer one looks, the harder it is identify with widely satisfying clarity.
William F. Buckley admitted it is virtually impossible to do.
However, it’s pretty clear what it is not and to suggest that redefining marriage is “conservative” (rather than populist, progressive, or even libertarian) is “conservative” is just plain weird.
In at least one usage (I like to think it’s the original usage, but I’m not sure), I think “conservative” vs. “liberal” are easy to define.
Liberal: Things could be better. Let’s change.
Conservative: Things could be worse. Let’s not change.
Both are healthy impulses. Conservatism looks at all we have accomplished, and seeks to conserve the benefits. Careless change might undermine the lessons we’ve learned. Liberalism looks at all we have yet to accomplish, and looks for ways to build upon what we’ve accomplished. What was good enough yesterday might be better tomorrow.
With a healthy blend of the two, liberals push to experiment and try new things, looking for new benefits; while conservatives keep a wary eye on the changes, looking for things to go wrong. And so today’s conservative is actually trying to conserve the successes of yesterday’s liberal. And sometimes, today’s conservative is yesterday’s liberal.
Sadly, I don’t think those definitions apply at all today.
Sullivan’s a whiner, and a self-indulgent one at that.
I get tired of the endless Sully-bashing that goes on in some corners of the blogosphere, but I do agree that he sort of blew it 2 years ago when it was so completely obvious that just because he was angry with Bush about his support of the FMA–which by the way will never be ratified in a million years–he suddenly did a 180 on 75% of what he’d been saying for almost 4 years.
Which was my complaint–he’s a one-issue voter who’s pretending he isn’t a one issue voter, and I’ve got no patience for it or him.
Comments on this entry are closed.