Andrew Sullivan, Screechy Schizophrenic

Is it better to have taken a position, though wrong, on the war, or to have never taken a coherent position at all?

Here's Sullivan, knocking Giuliani:

He seems to believe that merely taking a stand in warfare, even if it is a wrong one, is some kind of virtue in itself. Surely Iraq proves how mistaken this view is. It is important not only to be strong in warfare, but to be smart as well.

So, it's not a virtue to "merely take[] a stand in warfare."

And yet a week ago Sullivan was singing a different tune:

Mickey Kaus accuses Joe Klein of having it both ways on the Iraq war. I'd say that's better than having no coherent position on the war at all, except fathomless bitchiness toward anyone who ever had the balls to take a stand. But that's Mickey - circling the drain of his own irrelevance. And bitchily attacking anyone who's trying honestly to do better.

Why the difference in a week's time? Why was "merely taking a stand in warfare, even if a wrong one" a positive virtue to be contrasted with Kaus' ambivalence a short week ago?

Why, because a week ago, it was Sullivan praising himself for "merely taking a stand in warfare."

I get this "politics of doubt" thing now Sullivan is always talking about. The upshot of it is that Sullivan is free to write contradictory statements mere days apart, and sometimes change his mind completely in a single day's postings... so long as the fundamental political principle that Andrew Sullivan is always wise, brave, and just is preserved.

Thanks to Kaus, who shows the patience of a saint in not noting that Sullivan is here calling someone else "bitchy."

And the notion that Sullivan has had a "coherent" position on anything besides gay marriage is simply laughable.

posted by Ace at 04:17 PM

| Access Comments