In the early days of the internet, I read Andrew Sullivan's blog religiously. Not because I agreed with him as much as I felt intellectually challenged by him. I followed him through his initial support of the Iraq war and agreed with much of his criticism as the lessons of the war were revealed. In the early days, he wanted to be recognized as something more than just an outspoken gay Roman Catholic and Sullivan had the unique ability in the early blog world to rise above ideology to make constructive political arguments that would always make you think. Unfortunately, Sullivan, like many successful people in the blog world, has morphed into the ideologue that I think he himself would have despised just 5 years ago.
This became stunningly obvious in the October 3 discussion of his new book between himself and David Brooks at the Cato Institute which aired on C-SPAN (Real Video player required). Where Sullivan used to be able to escape his own world view to critique all people and policies across the political spectrum, he has now confined his opinions within the narrow spectrum of a gay Roman Catholic - as if that were all there was to this brilliant philosopher. In his opening comments and and in his response to questions later, Sullivan repeatedly scorched Evangelicals as a narrow, monolithic bunch as Brooks, who is Jewish, was left to mop up Sullivan's mistakes. I'm not an Evangelical and I'm not inclined to defend evangelicals, but it's more than a little ironic that Brooks had a better understanding of the diversity within Christianity than Sullivan himself. Sullivan's obvious inability to separate Christian Fundamentalists from Evangelicals (and specifically Mainline Evangelicals) not only demonstrated a lack of intelligence, it's a reflection of just how small the window in which he views the world has become.



Recent Comments