• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Andrew Sullivan - Leaving the Right

GreNME

Philosopher
GreNME
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
8,276
This post by Andrew Sullivan called "Leaving the Right" pretty much sums up my own feelings since about the end of 2004 going into the beginning of 2005, progressively increasing as the years have gone on, with a dramatic spike in disenchantment with the right coming from the 2008 presidential campaign. I can relate to many of the statements he's making, with the following as some of the more poignant standing out:

I cannot support a movement that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt.

I cannot support a movement that so abandoned government's minimal and vital role to police markets and address natural disasters that it gave us Katrina and the financial meltdown of 2008.

I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful.

I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation.

I cannot support a movement that sees permanent war as compatible with liberal democratic norms and limited government.

I cannot support a movement that criminalizes private behavior in the war on drugs.

I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism.

I cannot support a movement that regards gay people as threats to their own families.

I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact.

I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy.

I cannot support a movement that refuses ever to raise taxes, while proposing no meaningful reductions in government spending.

I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.
Click to expand...

Charles Johnson over on Little Green Footballs is mentioned in the very beginning of Sullivan's piece, and his own post says very much the same things in a slightly different form.

I like how Sullivan finishes the piece, and I think it's a lot more accurate than the right may feel comfortable admitting, at least for the time being:

To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the conservative movement. It left me.

And increasingly, I'm not alone.
Click to expand...
 
Hi GreNME! Long time no see.

I hate to say it but...

I cannot support a movement that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt.
Click to expand...

Isn't that kind of happening now? Also, aren't a lot of the things in that list traditionally footballs of both political parties? Granted the Left in the US certainly sings a different tune on these issues...I just have to admit that Olberman annoys me as much as Hannity.
 
Almost everything on those lists have been pretty prominent aspects of the American right-wing going back to at least Reagan. I'm supposed to applaud them for just seeing the light now? Better really-really-late then never I guess?
 
thesyntaxera said:
Hi GreNME! Long time no see.

I hate to say it but...



Isn't that kind of happening now? Also, aren't a lot of the things in that list traditionally footballs of both political parties? Granted the Left in the US certainly sings a different tune on these issues...I just have to admit that Olberman annoys me as much as Hannity.
Click to expand...

Hey there, man.

Basically, there's always some inheritance of issues that happens between administrations, especially with bigger issues. What Sullivan is mentioning there is the economic crash, the resulting job losses, and the huge debt we're facing right now-- all of these things preceded Obama, and as of yet claiming an accurate judgment of his efficacy at addressing those things is premature whether pro or con. Not surprisingly, though, the debt, the jobless rate, and the recession somehow happen to be complaints are ridiculously blamed on Obama, who won the election three months after the most notable crashes, and didn't take office until five months after them. If we're measuring from the beginning of the recession, then that stretches back to December of 2007, or possibly further depending on how you want to look at the numbers.

But that said: yeah, Olberman and Hannity should both be locked in an airtight room, with the door to remain sealed for at least 25 years (just to be sure).
 
†= Crap! said:
Almost everything on those lists have been pretty prominent aspects of the American right-wing going back to at least Reagan. I'm supposed to applaud them for just seeing the light now? Better really-really-late then never I guess?
Click to expand...

I don't think it goes back that far, but I could definitely see an argument that it went back as far as Newt's driving of the Republican Party into prominence in the 1990's.
 
GreNME said:
Hey there, man.

Basically, there's always some inheritance of issues that happens between administrations, especially with bigger issues. What Sullivan is mentioning there is the economic crash, the resulting job losses, and the huge debt we're facing right now-- all of these things preceded Obama, and as of yet claiming an accurate judgment of his efficacy at addressing those things is premature whether pro or con. Not surprisingly, though, the debt, the jobless rate, and the recession somehow happen to be complaints are ridiculously blamed on Obama, who won the election three months after the most notable crashes, and didn't take office until five months after them. If we're measuring from the beginning of the recession, then that stretches back to December of 2007, or possibly further depending on how you want to look at the numbers.
Click to expand...

It's very 'convenient' logic. They cut taxes, cut government regulation, spent obscene amounts of money on war, and then after they are out of power, suddenly the dept becomes a problem.

Of course this doesn't apply only to the right either. The left makes a lot of clamor about gay rights (it shows up twice on that little OP list), yet when they get power, suddenly it isn't such a huge issue any more.

But that said: yeah, Olberman and Hannity should both be locked in an airtight room, with the door to remain sealed for at least 25 years (just to be sure).
Click to expand...

That might convince them of the dangers of CO2.
 
GreNME said:
I don't think it goes back that far, but I could definitely see an argument that it went back as far as Newt's driving of the Republican Party into prominence in the 1990's.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The modern conservative movement has its roots prominently in the Reagan years. Before Reagan you at least had some presence of secular and socially-liberal conservatives (Goldwater for instance). Post-Reagan such conservatives had virtual no power or influence in the movement.

Granted, the Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans on many of those bullet points.
 
Last edited:
†= Crap! said:
Almost everything on those lists have been pretty prominent aspects of the American right-wing going back to at least Reagan. I'm supposed to applaud them for just seeing the light now? Better really-really-late then never I guess?
Click to expand...


Ain't it so? I've been reading Sullivan since he started blogging, and watched his transformation unfold. I support and encourage his change, but disagree with him that Conservatism left him. Sure, his conception of what Conservatism ought to stand for may be rock steady, but the unfortunate reality of Conservative politics is that these problems were merely amped up in the Bush II years. If you go back to Reagan, you have massive fiscal irresponsibility right in front of your nose.
 
Why should anyone give a crap is Sullivan is a conservative, a liberal or a Christmas fruitcake? He lost a lot of credibility when he went on and on about the Trig Palin maternity issue.

Hate Sarah Palin all you want, but the baby was a non-issue he wouldn't let go of.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Why should anyone give a crap is Sullivan is a conservative, a liberal or a Christmas fruitcake? He lost a lot of credibility when he went on and on about the Trig Palin maternity issue.
Click to expand...
True. He talks about how evil the right are in their sinister aspersions, and yet he imitates them. So what is his plan? He can talk crap about everyone and that will make him a moderate? Some of the things he says are sensible, but he lost credibility with his odd ideas about Palin.
 
Last edited:
†= Crap! said:
I disagree. The modern conservative movement has its roots prominently in the Reagan years. Before Reagan you at least had some presence of secular and socially-liberal conservatives (Goldwater for instance).
Click to expand...
I'll take it back even farther. My understanding of movement conservatism is that it came together in reaction to the Republican defeat of 1964. Segregationists and proponents of patriarchy had had enough and became two foundations of the movement. See the Southern Strategy and Phyllis Schlafly, respectively. Then in the '70's you saw men such as Richard Viguerie and his computerized direct-mail techniques get involved, as well as many Christian evangelists on TV and radio. It's no surprise that racism and homophobia (and regionalism) are still strong elements of the GOP.

All this suggests to me that Sullivan is playing the role of Captain Louis Renault.
 
dudalb said:
You can smell the Liberal self righteouness a mile away in this thread.
Click to expand...
Uh ... except that both the articles linked in the OP were written by former conservatives saying how they were wrong. Which is kinda the exact opposite of liberals being self-righteous.
 
Last edited:
Andrew left the "right" a long time ago; regular readers of the Daily Dish (as I was in 2003-2004) can date it to the moment that Bush came out in support of an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage. The laundry list of reasons is just a post-hoc rationalization.

There are, of course, valid reasons on that list; I despise Glenn Beck, for example. But each side has its pluses and minuses.
 
Brainster said:
Andrew left the "right" a long time ago; regular readers of the Daily Dish (as I was in 2003-2004) can date it to the moment that Bush came out in support of an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage. The laundry list of reasons is just a post-hoc rationalization ...
Click to expand...
They'll say the same about you, you know. When you can't take any more of this ****, they'll say the same about you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom