BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Sullivan on Dean

12 comments on Sullivan on Dean

Sullivan on Dean
: I can’t quite grok Andrew Sullivan’s essential endorsement of Howard Dean. Is it:

(a) the cynical act of a Bush backer who wants him to face the weakest foe?

(b) a resurgence of Sullivan’s Clinton-bashing: Anybody Clinton hates must be a friend of his? (And anybody Clinton backs — Clark — must be “a crackpot.”)

(c) the secret, forbidden longing of an in-the-closet Democrat?

He seems to disagrees with and dislike Dean on most fronts and yet thinks that having Dean represent the Democrats will somehow be like an ideological dose of Metamucil.

The Dems haven’t given themselves an opportunity to vent about the way they really feel – about those benighted rednecks, dumb-ass preppies, preposterous puritans and economic snake oil-salesmen they believe are now running the country. It would be really unhealthy for America and the Democrats to repress that any longer. They’ll give themselves a collective hernia. Dean represents an opportunity for honesty, for relief, for a true cultural clash.

No thanks, Doc. I think you’ve misprescribed. Dean is more of an irritant to the collective colon. What we need, instead, is a good dose of political Pepto.

12 responses to “Sullivan on Dean”

  1. Sum Dum Guy Avatar
    Sum Dum Guy

    It amazes me how little the general public understands Andrew Sullivan. He’s an editor. E-D-I-T-O-R. He’s not a journalist. He benefits when there are lots of exciting stories with lots of exciting bylines and lots of exciting reactions. He’ll fan any flame that brings him readers, as long as the flame is at the margins of his political opinion. It’s arguable that an “endorsement” of Dean is slightly beyond the fringes of (what Internet readers believe are) Sullivan’s set of personal beliefs, and that his flame-fanning in this case stretches credibility just a bit, but I think it’s close enough that he’ll take it.

  2. Gerard Van der Leun Avatar
    Gerard Van der Leun

    Seems to be all of a piece to me. After all, Andrew has made a career out of insisting that the best thing to be is come out and be all that you are.
    And this year, the Democrats are coming out of their ideological closet on a rocket.
    It will be a good thing. The country will see them and everything, EVERYTHING, that they are and vote accordingly.

  3. Ann Avatar
    Ann

    You made the Note today!

  4. Otter Avatar
    Otter

    First, Sullivan isn’t “endorsing” Dean in the sense that he’s going to vote for him. Come on.
    Second, what he said is exactly what I’ve been thinking as well. Dean has caught on because he perfectly represents what the core of the Democratic party believes, in contrast to the focus-grouped connivers running against him. I’d rather there were a more attractive alternative, but I’d rather see a genuine candidate and a genuine debate than watch John Edwards trot out whatever policies his team decides to run with.

  5. alkali Avatar
    alkali

    As I have said elsewhere (and will say again here at the risk of making a nuisance of myself) the puzzling thing is why Sullivan isn’t for Dean. The issue with which Sullivan has most strongly identified himself is gay marriage. Bush is pretty much against it, Dean is pretty much for it. The other differences between Bush and Dean are important, but they are closer to differences of degree (Bush thinks the cap gains tax should be lower; Dean thinks it should be higher; Bush is willing to work through the UN x amount; Dean is willing to work through the UN y amount). It would seem to me that even if he is aligned with Bush in all those other respects, Sullivan would find it very difficult to support the candidate who is opposite to him on that issue of principle he feels so deeply about. But instead Sullivan appears to believe the choice is a no-brainer.
    (Sullivan can support whomever he likes, of course — it’s the thought process I’m not getting.)

  6. Jack Tanner Avatar
    Jack Tanner

    I agree with Ottie Otter. I kind of like Dean in that he represents the core of the Dems who think their opinion is the only one that matters and that their entitled to every nickel you make. There’s a large constituency for that. Plus he says what’s on his mind, right or wrong. His supporters aren’t exactly known for clear thinking or moral clarity. Plus when you see that there’s not much difference between the supposed fringers like Kucinich and Sharpton and the pretenders like Kerry and Clark you realize it’s not like there’s a whole lot of competition. He has some appeal in that he was the one who had the stones to seriously and convincingly oppose Bush on Iraq which none of the other supposed mainstream candidates could manage to do. Right or wrong he stood for something which is a lot more than Kerry can say. However I do see some serious potential for splintering of the party but what the hey. Better to go down swinging than looking.

  7. Mithras Avatar
    Mithras

    I can’t quite grok Andrew Sullivan’s essential endorsement of Howard Dean.
    He wants to appear prescient in case Dean wins. Why else hedge your bets?

  8. Kathy K Bellicose Kat Avatar
    Kathy K Bellicose Kat

    Sullivan will vote for Bush for the same reason I will. I have some very serious problems with Bush and I would not vote for him under normal circumstances. However, we are at war and I see no other viable candidate.

  9. wayne Avatar
    wayne

    Personally, I think that Dean should be the nominee for the reasons that Andrew stated. I have said and feel that what is really needed is a viable third party made up of the socially liberal (not all government is bad but like most things moderation is the key) fiscally conservative people that probably make up 50% of both parties. Deans candicacy I think could help this come about.

  10. Greg D Avatar
    Greg D

    Alkali wants to know why Sullivan opposes Dean. The answer is quite simple:
    Dean thinks the world would be a better place if the Iraqi people were still being enslaved, tortured, and murdered by Saddam Hussein, his sons, and his Baathist thugocracy. Bush (correctly) disagrees.
    I suppose it’s possible for a decent human being to agree with Dean. I’m not quite sure how it’s possible, but I’m willing to believe that one or two people could come up with a justification for it. But for the vast majority of people, if you give a damn about anything more than yourself, you’re against Dean.

  11. Joshua Scholar Avatar
    Joshua Scholar

    Sullivan says
    I just think it’s healthy for the Dems and the country to have a real debate, especially about how to deal with terrorism. Bush thinks it’s a war; Dean doesn’t. Therein lies a very important discussion, one that’s been bedeviled by the far left’s loopiness and the need to rally around the president during a national security crisis. I’m glad that Dean won’t wilt under pressure. Even if democracy flourishes in Iraq, he will stick to regretting that we ever deposed Saddam by force of arms. I want to see that argument aired and resolved.
    I think what Sullivan knows is that standing up clearly and unquivically for pacifism even in the face of maximal evil will drive sensible people out of the Democratic party in droves and the Democratic party will have to face the fact that self-rightous pacifism is a kind of psuedo-moral masturbation that they can’t afford to support.
    It’s exactly this self-indulgent morally-insupportable oh-so-public display of piety that drove me away from the Green Party and that will force me to vote Republican for the first (and hopefully last) time in my life.

  12. Dave Avatar
    Dave

    Pepto-Bismol is fine if you have minor indigestion. But if you’ve ingested poison, ipecac might be prescribed instead.