Those who frequent the blog written by the Inspector Javert of Trig Palin’s matrilineal line can be forgiven for thinking that he has a macro installed on his computer to spit out passages like this one:
9.14 pm. Pawlenty just described assassinations of scientists as “good work”. He also says there should be “no daylight” between US policy and Israeli policy. Between his own president and the prime minister of a foreign country, Pawlenty is with the foreign power.
(Emphasis mine.) You know, this is such unbelievable nonsense, and while I would expect someone with Sullivan’s education not to constantly issue these kinds of dog-whistle remarks, I guess that with Sullivan, I have to resign myself to being consistently appalled. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with saying “between the Obama Administration’s stance on a particular foreign policy issue, and the stance of Country X, I’ll go with Country X.” It doesn’t make one disloyal, or unpatriotic to write or say such things. If you want to argue that the Obama Administration’s stance on a particular foreign policy issue is better than that of Country X, you can certainly feel free to do so, and perhaps you might even be right, but the point is that you can make that argument without insinuating that your opponents are somehow traitors. Equally notable is the exceedingly strong likelihood that Sullivan had no problem whatsoever siding with foreign countries that disagreed with Bush Administration policies when he decided to turn against the 43rd President–after accusing “[t]he decadent Left” of constituting “a fifth column,” back when he did support the Bush Administration, of course.
I suppose that someone is going to point to Sullivan’s habit of accusing the other guys of being traitors as evidence that I cannot and should not take him seriously. Indeed, as an intellectual force, Sullivan has pretty much exhausted himself; his blog posts mostly are filled with sound and fury, signifying generally fawning treatment of Barack Obama and his supposed ability to play 6.02 x 1023 dimension chess, along with enough “meep meeps” to make one wish the Internet and blogs had never been created. But that doesn’t mean that bad writing and bad thinking ought to go unremarked upon–especially when they appear on a blog that boasts a large (if generally undiscerning) readership.
Oh, and if Sullivan is going to keep accusing people who support Israel of being disloyal, then I am going to link to this. No, I still don’t believe that Andrew Sullivan is anti-Semitic; my own feelings on the matter are somewhat more complicated. But just because Sullivan isn’t anti-Semitic doesn’t mean that his rhetoric isn’t ugly. I once gave Sullivan a chance to answer some questions for me, and perhaps clear the air regarding his stance on Israel and Jews. Too bad that his effort on that score was, at best, incomplete.
UPDATE: Please read this before thinking of offering a certain brand of comment.