Andrew Sullivan's jihad (Embarrassed by Sullivan, Salon Editor Talbot Throws a HUGE Tantrum!)

Salon ^ | October 20, 2001 | David Talbot

[Timesink]

Andrew Sullivan's jihad
Since Sept. 11, the British journalist has declared himself the mullah of the media world, sitting in judgment of American writers' patriotism.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By David Talbot

Oct. 20, 2001 | I like and respect journalist Andrew Sullivan, though I often disagree with his opinions. I find much of what he has to say about soggy thinking on the left to be a bracing tonic -- which is why Salon has published his views, along with those of David Horowitz, Norah Vincent, Camille Paglia and other conservative or independent critics of lockstep, left-wing thought. On the few occasions I've had the pleasure of his company, I've enjoyed his wit and charm. Since the horrors of Sept. 11, however, Sullivan's voice has become a shriek, hitting an ear-piercing decibel that, whether intended or not, drives out the possibility of rational discussion.

In recent weeks, Sullivan has taken it upon himself to evaluate whether his fellow writers and commentators are sufficiently patriotic. He broods darkly -- in the pages of his native British press, on his Web site and on the Op-Ed pages of the Wall Street Journal -- that America harbors nests of traitors, or in his words "decadent left enclaves on the coasts [that] may well mount a fifth column." And like all Manichaean guardians of national security, from the days of the Alien and Sedition Acts to those of Joseph McCarthy, Sullivan has turned his pumped-up and disproportionate rhetoric toward rooting out these disloyal Americans in his midst.

On his Web site, he does not just engage antiwar writer Katha Pollitt, whose tortured ruminations in the Nation on whether to fly a flag from her New York apartment window were admittedly neurotic and absurd. He seeks to obliterate her, gloating after a lopsided debate with her on public radio that "I took no prisoners." In the church of Sullivan, those who criticize or express ambivalence about the bombing of Afghanistan are not just wrong -- they are corrupt souls who must be excommunicated from the American congregation.

Turning his gaze of moral reproach on Salon, Sullivan has branded Gary Kamiya an appeaser for proposing that it's time for Washington to put pressure on the Israelis and the Palestinians to reach a peace settlement -- even though the tough and worldly men Sullivan so ardently admires in the Bush administration began taking this very line days later. And Friday, Sullivan lashed into me for conducting an interview "on [my] knees" with Susan Sontag, in which she characterized the bin Laden terror network as implacable and deadly foes while criticizing the bombing campaign's impact on civilians. Sullivan was as incensed by Sontag's remarks as he was by my introductory comments about the efforts of Sullivan's conservative colleagues to banish her from the world of acceptable intellectual discourse. "These pampered journalists," he fumed, "who have never seen a moment of real censorship in their lives, and who have marginalized conservative voices for their entire careers in their own organs and field of influence, take the occasion of the massacre of thousands of their fellow citizens to worry about themselves -- and preen self-righteously at the same time."

Since Sullivan has unleashed the hounds of patriotic fury, I'll respond with some nationalistic zeal of my own. It's repellent to be lectured about my commitment to America, which is deep and true, by an arrogant and self-important Brit. And it's equally galling to be scolded about my supposed intolerance of conservative dissent in Salon when I have made a consistent effort to include Sullivan's own voice and that of many of his fellow conservatives in our pages. Sullivan has often fallen to his own knees before President Bush in Salon. In fact there is no political journal in the country -- on the left or right -- that publishes as eclectic a mix of opinions as we do. The same week we published the interview with Sontag, Salon ran a cover essay by her son, David Rieff, blasting the Berkeley City Council's anti-bombing resolution and the "depraved rationalizations of the American left." When Sullivan seeks ideological variety, does he eagerly reach for the latest National Review or Weekly Standard? His own site is rigorously monochromatic -- one-note blasts from the increasingly narrow confines of his own head.

Earlier this year, Sullivan was exposed by the gay press for advertising for "bareback" sex (unprotected by condoms) in an AOL chat room and denounced as a hypocrite by his liberal gay critics for engaging in risky sexual practices after attacking President Clinton for his own incautious behavior. Salon was among Sullivan's most vocal defenders, running two pieces that condemned the invasion of his sexual privacy and the political motivations behind his "outing." It wasn't FreeRepublic.com that rallied around Sullivan; those conservative "enclaves" are too busy tossing kindling on the pyres to burn the sodomites. Their latest cause is blasting the Bush administration for apologizing on behalf of the Navy crewmen who painted "hijack this, fags" on missiles headed toward Afghanistan.

Speaking of the "decadent left enclaves on the coasts," who does Sullivan think fights for his right to enjoy the sexual pleasures of his choosing? His increasingly intolerant rhetoric is an affront to the very culture that protects him. If a right-wing theocracy ever came to power in America, guess who'd be the first person whose ass would be rounded up, self-described "power glutes" and all? And guess which Web journalists would be among the first to demand his freedom?

Sullivan's Taliban style of argument and his rigid habit of separating the world into the blessed and the damned turns American politics into a free-fire zone where any deviation from his view of the national program is immediately leveled. His absolutism has no way to account for someone with my views -- and there are many like me --without grossly caricaturing them. I strongly support the U.S. air and ground war against bin Laden and the Taliban. I believe unrelenting military force is the only way to destroy this ruthless enemy. I proudly display an American flag in my window. But I also believe that unless America works just as hard at making peace in the Middle East as we currently are at making war, our country will never be safe. And I believe that the American cause is served, not sabotaged, by those who disagree vehemently with my positions.

It is true that the urge to censor comes not just from the right, but also from the left. When U.C.-Berkeley's student government denounced a campus cartoonist for his allegedly culturally insensitive swipe at Islamic terrorists and clamored to put his editors in a reeducation program, these young centurions of correct speech were rightly blasted throughout the media world and quickly wilted under the fire. But journalists, including Sullivan, should be particularly vigilant against censorship when it's advocated by the government. It may strike Sullivan as "pampered" for American journalists to worry about this, but our ancestors fought and died for the right of free speech. During every crisis in our country's history, this freedom is the first to be challenged by self-proclaimed patriots as a threat to national security. If the press and the public don't fight for freedom of speech at times like these, it will quickly become a hollow right.

Andrew Sullivan is an insightful and intelligent man. He needs to pull back from his current jihad. There is too much testosterone pumping through his veins these days. He is right to be furious. The country has suffered a grievous blow -- one stunning in its premeditated wickedness -- and we are still being afflicted with threats to our security. The terrorist assault demands and is receiving a ferocious response. But it also demands that we all think deeply and carefully about how to make the country and the world safer, not just scream in outrage.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
David Talbot is Salon's founder and editor in chief.

[Vinomori]

Meaning is the difference that it makes. If it makes no difference, it has no meaning. Sullivan is making a difference. Talbot is not. Talbot gets that on an intuitive level, but not intellectually. So he lashes out at the difference-maker.

[JCG]

Is David Talbot any relation to Strobe Talbot?

Strobe is a double-t Talbott.

 America's Fifth Column ... watch JIHAD! In America -- here

[JCG]

what's the purple triangle stand for?

In Nazi concentrations camps Jehovah's Witnesses wore them; the pink triangles were for homosexuals.

 America's Fifth Column ... watch JIHAD! In America -- here

[MamaLucci]

Oh, look...a new troll. Buzz off.

[BillF]

So he lashes out at the difference-maker.

Well put.

I should have added that he gratuitously attacks Sullivan for being a Brit, a xenophobic attack. As if being a Brit disqualifies Sullivan from criticizing others.

Many of the most patriotic Americans are immigrants. They know from living elsewhere how great the U.S. is.

[BCrago66]

HYSTERICAL LYING LEFTIST ALERT:

Evidence?

1 - Worrals registered: October 20th, 2001

2 - He hates Sullivan.

3 - He calls people "hypocritical" - which is code for: I'm basically an immoral lefty zero, and thus I attempt to bring down those who are morally superior to me, because they remind me of what a worthless loser I am.

[headsonpikes]

I remember those Sullivan threads; they were well over half on Andrew's side.

I'll take Sullivan, warts and all, over any flannel-mouthed Establishment pseud.

FReepers are a very tolerant bunch, I think. There's no more than the socially normal proportion of closet authoritarians.;^)

[conservativesoutherner]

It's refreshing to read the words of a man who comes from a specific group normally associated with liberals, that refuses to be cowed into 'group thinking'. He speaks to his his own beliefs, not others. And, from everything i've read, he's a real patriot and true American- even though he was born in Britain. He's a good conservative as well, broadly speaking. Not only does he hue to the wisdom of lower taxes and smaller government, he also embraces most aspects of social conservatism and traditional values. In fact, the thing that I like most about him is his defense of religion in the face of the church's opposition to sodomy and gay marriage. He still holds firm on his faith in god and family. I'd venture to say that most conservatives, as myself, don't find as much opposition to homosexuals as has often been insinuated by liberals. Most of us believe that marriage should remain an institution for traditional marriage, uniting a man and a woman. And, we also tend to believe that children should be adopted out to traditional married couples. These positions comes from our religious and moral views. But, other than that, most of the positions we're accused of expressing hate with, have nothing to do with our feelings about homosexuality. An issue like hate crimes is a perfact example. We don't oppose hate crimes because of homosexuals, but because of our opposition to big, intrusive government; as well as the inequality before law that would result as a consequence of differing standards of justice. We also oppose non-discrimination acts because we don't believe the government should be allowed to tell the private sector how to run it's buisness. And, our opposition to quotas doesn't need an explanation. I see no problem with someone having a private life that's different than mine, so long as we're talking about consenting adults here. Who know's for certain whether homosexuality is an abominable sin. It's certainly abnormal, unusual and generally uncomfortable. But, it doesn,t seem the equivalent of say, murder. So, we conservatives, have almost always made an honest attempt to simultaneous air on the side of tradition, as well as to show tolerance. And, ultimately, it's God's judgement to make. So, Andrew Sullivan is a great guy and a good American (as well as a good conservative)! David Talbot, however, hasn't got the intillectual capability to think for himself. He simply recites old arguments and lame excuses. He practices group think and condemnation of anyone who dares to dissent. It is he who practices the real philosophical jihad. So much for the theory that the Taliban exists only in Afghanistan- it would appear that some of it's members are taking up residence right here in our own backyard!

[xkaydet65]

Andrew Sullivan knows that victory in this war will require more than technology and courage. It will require of our nation to reach into its very soul. Our enemies are fortified with evil and it will require a people with a common soul to defeat them. Despite our affluence and excess we still possess such qualities. Maybe Tony Blair can recall in his people the similar qualities that led to the Finest Hour. But perhaps the one people who possess the character and soul to join our crusade, and yes it is a crusade, are the Russians. 70 years of Communism could not extinguish their faith. Western Europe has abandonded the old values for the marketplace. We cannot depend on them, but Russia? We are, I think, a similar people. We who have known the road to freedom all of our existence and they who have barely started the journey. We both know that freedom is purchased not with gold, but with steel. I think Andrew Sullivan knows this about us, and only fears our being led astray by those who have sold their liberty for comfort.

[VMI70]

Thanks

[sourcery]

Sorry about all the dead links in the cut-and-pasted article. They all worked on the preview page!

The preview page is constructed on your computer, and so all relative URLs are interpreted with your computer as the base prefix. Any relative URLs that refer to documents accessible locally on your computer (e.g., in your http cache) will therefore work just fine on the preview page. But they won't work when the article is posted, because that changes which computer is taken as the base for relative URLs.

[Lancey Howard]

"It wasn't FreeRepublic.com that rallied around Sullivan; those conservative "enclaves" are too busy tossing kindling on the pyres to burn the sodomites. Their latest cause is blasting the Bush administration for apologizing on behalf of the Navy crewmen who painted "hijack this, fags" on missiles headed toward Afghanistan."

One paragraph, so many lies and distortions. This liberal mouse has no familiarity whatsoever with Free Republic if he thinks we are monolithic in our thoughts and opinions on any subject. What a maroon....

[section9]

The important thing to remember is that Sullivan must be brought down by the left for two reasons:

1. He is a turncoat gay.

2. He edits the New Republic, a bastion of liberalism.

Talbot, otoh, cannot abide Sullivan's success and notoriety (which contrasts nicely, btw, with the absolute steaming t*rd that Salon.com has become).

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Lancey Howard]

"Since the horrors of Sept. 11, however, Sullivan's voice has become a shriek, hitting an ear-piercing decibel that, whether intended or not, drives out the possibility of rational discussion."

This sentence, by the way, was the tipoff about Talbot's problem. See it?
"....drives out the possibility of rational discussion."
See!! There can be no "rational discussion", ie., debate, when it comes to the truth - - that is, the truth is not debatable. This has always been a major frustration for liberals. Liberals always cry "foul" this way when they are confronted with the unblemished truth because the truth is their greatest enemy. They simply have no answer except to whine, wring their hands, and then....lie.

[Havisham]

I also remember some people NOT sticking up for him... FR does have its share of people with anti-gay attitudes, as well.

Well we're sure as h*ll not pro-gay here. Right now, young men's hearts and health are being shredded by homosexuals who, although they are 1-3% percent of the male population, are over-represented in sexual abuse cases by a factor of 10.

[ikanakattara]

People may not be pro-gay here, but I for one think Andrew Sullivan has been completely right-on in his essays about the war. I'm not going to reject his war essays, and the truth in them, because Sullivan is gay. I know who MY enemy is - the Islamofascists that want to beat, rape, cut, and kill women and any men, gay or straight, who disagree with them. Not gay men like Sullivan, or Mark Bingham, or any other gay patriots.

[beckett]

It is simply false to charge that Free Republic is "busy tossing kindling on the pyres to burn the sodomites." Jim Robinson has discouraged "gay issue" threads for years.

Does Salon have 70,000 regular contributors that it must answer for? Of course not, but David Talbot expects Jim Robinson to answer for all 70,000 of his.

[brat]

GO ANDREW!!! You obviously hit some sore spots!

[IVote2]

"I remember defending Sullivan on FR, and I remember a lot of other people standing up for him here, too.
That's exactly what I recall, too."

I was going to post the same thing. I know I thought the article from his perspective made sense.

I hate generalizations and we certainly don't all think the same here on FR. Thanks for both of you making the point that I was going to make.

Regards, Jen

[WOSG]

Message to Talbot: Salon will be dead and buried but freerepublic.com will live on!!!

As for his nutty "Taliban-style argument" claims ... takes one to know one. He is a lefty taliban. Wants to put Sullivan under a blanket, just like Taliban do to women. Apparently we have a free country only for leftie American critics. wrong - Sullivan is calling a spade a spade and anti-Americanism is being called anti-Americanism. Cant stand the heat? get out of the kitchen!