Saturday, September 04, 2004

Simplified Bush Doctrine and a note on the Sullivan drift

I'm totatlly swamped scholastically, so "free-time" writing is nil right now. However, I see that Citizen Smash - The Indepundit has offered a concise distillation of the Bush Doctrine for us all. Perhaps sometime I can go more in depth. For now, this will suffice.

Sidenote: Smash comments on how Andrew Sullivan has become a single issue voter and it made me mindful of something I have been contemplating: I am close to removing Mr. Sullivan from my links (to the right). His drift to "one-issueness" has effected his writing on every issue. With every post, his logic seems more convoluted. He seems to understand the gravity of the "Big Issue" as much as anyone, yet he seems unable to put his personal situation aside when analyzing matters not directly linked to his "pet" issue. In an era of Big Things, sometimes we must sacrifice those things that we personally hold dear for what is most important to our society. (Yes, I know, it sounds like Mr. Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" and all that).

Regardless, Andrew has become a one-note piano and everything he posts on now is colored by his (understandable) stance on the Gay Marriage issue. At first, he cautioned those advocating gay marriage against going too fast, and, despite mixed messages, seemed to admit that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of gay marriage in the Bay State was not the proper device through which his personal crusade should have found legitimization. Nonetheless, he certainly has championed the outcome while denigrating those opposed to gay marriage for attempting to do battle in the constitutional arena. (This is just a bare outline of the issue, Justin Katz has been following Sullivan more intently than I). His logical twists and turns have found their way into nearly all of his arguments, it seems. More and more, I see him disagreeing with those he agreed with a year ago, such as Glenn Reynolds, but now he seems to border on demonization when noting his disagreement with them on relatively piddly issues like the Zell Miller speech. Andrew, if it seems that all those with whom you once agreed now disagree with you, but still agree with each other, it is true: that should tell you which entity seems to have changed philosophically. It is you, not us, who has become inconsistent. You are not some righteous lone wolf standing on a hill howling at the moon with a song of ideological purity because his pack left him. Instead, you have wandered from the pack and, despite our howls, you ignore us. You let your personal desires override the collective desires of the pack, and now you are alone, surrounded by social and cultural companions, but ideologically isolated. Perhaps one day you will see your way back, until then, farewell.

No comments: