fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Sullivan Blathers!

Oh, joy. He hasn’t read the book, of course. But, according to him, it can only be two things: “daft or dishonest“. The insults these theocons are throwing my way is a sign of their real fear that the book exposes them for what they are: deeply alien to conservatism in its old, sane sense, theocratic […]

Oh, joy. He hasn’t read the book, of course. But, according to him, it can only be two things: “daft or dishonest“. The insults these theocons are throwing my way is a sign of their real fear that the book exposes them for what they are: deeply alien to conservatism in its old, sane sense, theocratic hijackers of a great tradition of moderation and doubt. ~Andrew Sullivan

Of course, there is no “great tradition of moderation and doubt” if it means what Sullivan says that it means.  The flippant, ignorant use of the word “theocratic” in his attacks is par for the course with Sullivan (Mr. Ponnuru, who answers Sullivan here, does not strike anyone serious as theocratic in the slightest, and you would think Sullivan would have to know this), and the entire project of labeling people as Christianists and theocratic makes you wonder who is really more afraid of whom. 

I have read the book (unfortunately), and I would have to vote for the daft option myself.  Sullivan isn’t being dishonest when he says ignorantly, for example, that Christ was imperfect and full of doubt.  (He thinks this is a perfect example, as it were, that fundamentalists are not being very Christ-like in their dogmatic and moral certainty!)  I think he literally doesn’t know anything about Christology but pretends to hold forth on what real, authentic Christianity (as opposed to mean, old Christianism) is supposed to be.  The same wowzer examples might be reproduced for his views of many other things.  So, daft he is. 

Dishonesty would presuppose some considerable knowledge of the subjects about which he is writing that he has chosen to obscure or misrepresent to serve his turn.  He doesn’t have a good enough grasp of the Christian or conservative traditions to consciously misrepresent them; he understands them poorly, and then thinks he has found a killer argument against “fundamentalism” in pointing out the differences between his poor understanding and other people’s more considered views.  I don’t want to go any more into it, or else I will give away my review, but Sullivan should not find great solace that his adversaries not only don’t agree with his views (which would be one thing) but do not even take his book seriously as a product of real intellectual endeavour.  It is rather more  embarrassing and pitiable than anything else, since it is clear that Sullivan very desperately wants to be considered a big intellectual player in the conservative game.  The trouble is that he doesn’t even understand the rules or know which equipment to use.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here