I review Andrew Sullivan's new book.
« The Problematics of Neocolonialism | Main | The Party of Ideas »
The Conservative Soul
31 Oct 2006 01:33 pm
Comments (32)
That stings a little.
I think you put into words my main issue with the book. Once you strip away the pretty rhetorical flourishes and philosophical name-dropping, there isn't a lot of there there. In this way it's fully on par with Beinart's "good fight." Hardly surprising.
Much like Beinart, there's nothing about the underlying philosophy or doctrine which compels (or if I'm being ungenerous, even suggests) the policies and positions he espouses beyond the most banal calls for Freedom, Democracy and a Pony
Somewhere he must have addressed the obvious conflict between his "conservatism of doubt" and his fundamentalist advocacy of a huge change in the marriage laws. Presuambly that's in the book, right?
There's a funny moment in the movie Cold Comfort Farm where the heroine and her best friend seek to educate a backward charge of theirs in the best of modern thought. They promote a book, The Higher Common Sense, which they recommend but give no evidence of having actually read. Thinking by rules of thumb, even 2nd or 3rd hand rules of thumb lead inexorably to someone like That Man and the defense of men like That Man by men like Sullivan. We all know what's best. It's what people like us think is what's best.
his fundamentalist advocacy of a huge change in the marriage laws.
Words have meaning Al, just because you call something Fundamentalist doesn't make it so. A strongly held position is not always fundamentalist - he makes cogent arguments for SSM which, unlike fundamentalist arguments, are falsifiable. If you could demonstrate that SSM would lead to...well pick a Santorum fantasy, that cripples his arguments, and I think he'd admit as much.
He may be absolutist, but when it comes down to it, aren't we all about some things (you Chelsea loving freak, he said snotilly)
Fantastic review. Love the line about academic postmodernists.
It would have been worthwhile to mention that the philosophers Sullivan idolizes come from, more or less, the same elite that you describe at the end of the article.
OK, Pooh, consider my gratuitous use of the (perhaps incorrect) term "fundamentalist" deleted. How does he square "conservatism of doubt" with advocacy of gay marriage? After all, the opponents of gay marriage basically use a "conservatism of doubt" to oppose gay marriage (e.g., they say that we ought to be very cautious about changing something that's worked well for thousands of years). Yet Sullivan is strongly in favor of gay marriage. The inconsistency is rather glaring.
A great review.
The best historical comparison is the Mugwumps, liberal Republicans and wealthy Democrats of the late-nineteenth century who favored limited government, the gold standard, and free trade. Indeed, Sullivan resembles no historical character more closely than E.L. Godkin, the Anglo-Irish editor of the Nation from 1865 to 1899. Though Godkin staunchly opposed militarism, their views otherwise track nicely.
Let me add that Sullivan's own fundamentalism is betrayed by his intense distaste for Bill Clinton. Sullivan attacked Clinton as a treacherous radical, even though no president has ever hewed more tightly to the TNR line.
"the flare for good prose"
Glad to see the homonyms aren't confined to the blog...
How does he square "conservatism of doubt" with advocacy of gay marriage? After all, the opponents of gay marriage basically use a "conservatism of doubt" to oppose gay marriage (e.g., they say that we ought to be very cautious about changing something that's worked well for thousands of years). Yet Sullivan is strongly in favor of gay marriage. The inconsistency is rather glaring.
I don't see it as inconsistent at all - which is actually part of his problem. In his formulation, "conservatism of doubt" is more a mode of argumentation and analysis than a defined set of policy preferences. (In the book, he doesn't advocate many affirmative policy changes, if any...) So, within this worldview he offers various rationales for SSM that are well within a 'conservative' mindset. He also would reject your formulation that allowing SSM would some how destroy "something that's worked well for thousands of years" - and to some degree this is a more-or-less empirical point on which we (you and I) probably disagree in the absence of real evidence either way.
About a year back, Prof. Dale Carpenter had a series of posts at Volokh on the conservative case for SSM, if you're interested in what such a case might resemble.
One of the real problems that we face in discussing politics is the erroneous liberal-conservative continuum. I think it is far better to conceive the situation as being divided between on the one hand liberals and authoritarians, and on the other, conservatives and progressives. Liberals prefer diffuse power, while authoritarians prefer concentrated power. Conservatives dislike change while progressives desire it.
Conceived of this way, one can be BOTH liberal and conservative (as Sullivan, generally is) or authoritarian and progessive (like G.W. Bush).
One area in which I fear that Sullivan is authoritarian, is his use of authors. He seems to use them too dogmatically, treating them as authorities preaching the Gospel of Skepticism. In some cases perhaps they were, but the better among them (Montaigne for instance) rises above this.
An example of this is Montaigne's deep disdain toward doctors. He says that they can't agree on diagnoses and that they'll do you more harm than good. This of course WAS true at the time he wrote (and for a long time after), but it's not a fair description of how things are now. Montaigne of course never professes to be expounding The Truth for all men for all time, just his own observations and reflections. Were he alive to today it seems reasonable that he'd happily expand the boundries of human experience well past where they were at in the 16th Century.
re: conservative doubt
Conservative rules of thumb -- as in "prefer the devil you know to the devil you don't" -- aren't dogma.
Change is inevitable, and Burke would probably agree with the arch-conservative Alexander Pope: (from memory)
Be not the first by whom the new is tried
Nor yet the last to lay the old aside.
Gay marriage has been tried in various places for a number of years and the societies where it has been tried haven't buckled. Sewers aren't coughing up human filth into the streets. The gay couples who have married probably have a variety of reactions to how much it has hurt or helped their lives. Much like heterosexual marriage.
How does he square "conservatism of doubt" with advocacy of gay marriage?
If you're genuinely interested in this, you should read the book; obviously, it's a major theme.
Great review, and especially valuable for dwelling on Sullivan's Iran hysteria. He can talk about scepticism and empiricism until the sun goes nova, but until he notices that he's hyping the exact same type of disinfo about Iran that he did about Iraq (and claims to regret, now), it's impossible to take him very seriously. Seems to me that learning from experience a fairly crucial element of healthy scepticism, no?
I agree, its a great review. I have mixed feelings about Sullivan. He's an entertaining writer, and seems to have good political intuition. For example, even though he was still in thrall to Bush at the time, he immediately recognized that the Mission Accomplished stunt was over the top and would probably backfire.
When it comes to actual substance, and the ability to think critically and logically...uh, no. And I agree about his Iran hysteria. In fact, hysteria seems to be his natureal state of being. Remember his post-9/11 fears that decadent coastal elites would be a 5th column, in cahoots with the terrorists?
He's an entertaining writer, and seems to have good political intuition.
I think his relative lack of interest (for a political writer) in either the nitty-gritty of campaign mechanics or the nitty-gritty of public policy gives him better-than-usual instincts about these kind of things will play; he's more like a regular person, in that regard, than most people in the game.
If you're genuinely interested in this, you should read the book; obviously, it's a major theme.
Damn - I was hoping for a 5-minute summary. I doubt I'll be reading the book - political theory ain't the most interesting topic to me... but that one question I am interested in. Maybe I can pick up the argument in a quick bookstore flip-through.
I have mixed feelings about Sullivan. He's an entertaining writer, and seems to have good political intuition.
Praise for his own role in talking up "The Bell Curve" long after it had been debunked. That's political intuition you can bank on.
And I bet he did.
I try and help you out Al -- I heard Andrew give a quick answer to this question on a NPR interview.
He said something like -- conservatives see the world as it is --- so they wouldn't try to pretend that there aren't homosexuals. And since homosexuals aren't going anywhere, conservatives would look for a way to include them in time-tested conservative instutions like marriage.
This is a poor paraphrase of his argument, but I think this gives you the idea.
I don't think he would argue that a true conservative would have to favor same-sex marriage -- just that is possible to make a conservative argument for it.
It was a brilliant and even moving review. I was going to link to this thing about Henry James on John Ruskin, but fuck it. I don't know if Sullivan has too much heart or not enough; but I think he lacks some distance and humour for true conservatism.
He is the closest I think we have now; let him age a little.
I always liked the Buckley brothers. A wise man will make you laugh.
Damn - I was hoping for a 5-minute summary. I doubt I'll be reading the book - political theory ain't the most interesting topic to me... but that one question I am interested in.
Okay, to try for a brief summary...
Sullivan argues that social values have already shifted to the point where a policy of massive state repression of homosexuality is no longer viable. "Out and proud" homosexuality is a fact of contemporary life that isn't going away. Sullivan argues that, under the circumstances, the best way to defend traditional marriage is to welcome gays and lesbians into its ambit. The only alternative to gay marriage will be continued agitation for marriage-esque arrangements -- civil unions, various sorts of privately arranged legal contracts for committed couples -- whose proliferation and continued existence will undermine marriage.
Now, personally, I like Sullivan's conclusion and this argument seems sound to me, but not being a conservative I have a hard time really evaluating it.
I think the real story is how poorly it's selling. It's officially been out now a couple of weeks, I think. Last time I checked, it had made neither Amazon's nor BN.com's top 100.
Yikes.
first rate review--and I have written a lot of reviews in my time.
It's a good thing you were already planning to read all of the books you cite--and every page in every one of them--cause the snarky part in this review about Sully not doing his reading is just asking for pay-backs when your own book comes out!
Still, I thought you did a nice job being generous to him as well as critical. You point out that he is a temperamental lumper rather than a splitter.
Fact is, you are both credits to the blogosphere, each in very different ways.
Matt: We disagree on a great many things, but may I say, that was a terrific review of Sullivan's general thought. I particularly loved the last paragraph. He's for sound money, yes, opposed to social democracy, yes, but he isn't some kind of wierdo free marketeer, either! Sullivan is so boring And I actually don't think he's that great a stylist, but you know, I'm willing to say my ambivalence toward his politics also makes me ambivalent about his writing, too.
Anyway, fantastic review!
Best thing I've seen you write Matt, and that is saying a lot. The stuff on conventional wisdom was superb. If I were you (and I'm not!), I'd be planning a book on how the conventional wisdom of our elites -- an important force for stability in any society -- has been co-opted and corrupted over the past ten years. Plus what this means for politics, etc. It could of course include a lot on foreign policy, but it's a richer topic than just that. IMO better than yet another Here's A Grand Foreign Policy for the Democrats book.
I heard he was GAY, and CATHOLIC. Ordinarily you might think it was a contradiction to be GAY and CATHOLIC, but it turns out not to be the case. You can be GAY and CATHOLIC at the same time and there is no contradiction. That's what I learned from reading ANDREWSULLIVAN.COM.
Why shouldn't he collapse Shiite and Sunni threads of Islamism, after all, when, under the "fundamentalist" rubric, he's ready to lump both together with highly politicized right-wing Protestant leaders like James Dobson, largely apolitical traditionalist Catholics like Mel Gibson and Joseph Ratzinger, Zionist extremists like Yigal Amir, old-school Marxists, anti-globalization activists, and even Great Society liberals? "Fundamentalist," it seems, means something like, "someone I disagree with."
Like liberals never do this, by, say, lumping together libertarian and nanny-state theocon authoritarians as "rethugs", or throwing socially liberal mainline Protestants and moderate evangelicals in the same "Christian wingnut" pot as Dobsonite creationist dominionist yahoos?
I think Sullivan pretty clearly defines fundamentalism in his terms to mean not so much a particular ideology as a particular mindset - it's the elevation of a priori dogmatic belief over empiricism and the accompanying preference for ideological rather than pragmatic approaches to problem-solving. This is indeed something that Shiite radicals, Wahhabists, Christian fundamentalists, Marxists, PC radicals, lockstep anti-globalization zealots, and left-wing postmodernists share.
A great review.
"the conservatism of elite complacency" indeed. I have heard something like that before *cough* Galbraith *Cough*
Redefining conservatism as wisdom is still a bit short. While we're at it, why not directly redefine it as ponies - if i may add to the herd?
It seems (haven't read, don't plan to) Sullivan tell us about this lost tribe, the Reasonable Conservatives : they are, apparently, the ones who were shilling for the the Bushist insanities all along but! holding! their! noses!!! Montaigne, bitches!!!
Now the whackos have turned everything they touched to shit, we are going to learn that the right wing american punditoclones are really about, is wisdom and skepti-fucking-cism, not militaristic mental masturbation.
It's the little dance the enablers would dance, wouldn't they?
When cornered, I once heard Mr. Sullivan refer to himself as a liberal (on one of Tweety's programs) the way one admits they are gay to a potentially unsympathetic audience, or poor to some rich girl they've been courting.
As a matter of fact, coming out as a liberal was probably worse than coming out as gay (at least for one's career prospects in elite Washington) during the 1980s and 1990s (when Mr. Sullivan got his start). Sullivan is a certain kind of backlash liberal, a contemporary breed which also includes the likes of Mickey Kaus and Joe Klein.
But whereas the other backlash liberals (any number of whom occupy the masthead of the New Republic) never quite renonced liberalism, Sullivan branded himself a conservative early on, which has meant lately that in order to call himself a conservative and believe he does he must reinvent conservatism to mean something few conservatives say it means.
Sullivan's instincts are liberal. He just chooses to suppress some of those instincts. In certain cases this may be wise or at least flatter the elites, and in other cases (especially on economic matters) this may be cruel, and dated. But he is not suppressing the same instincts as Burke, Robert A Taft, or Mr. Goldwater - who were all genuine conservatives at heart. Mr. Sullivan is closer to being a "reasonable liberal" than a "reasonable conservative."
PS I'll bet Peter Beinart's advance was bigger than Sullivan's. Perhaps (for the first time in a long time) there is more money to be made in "reasonable liberalism" than "reasonable conservatism".
"Sullivan's substantive views are almost frighteningly banal. Far from "bold and provocative," Sullivan offers up an unusually colorful expression of what is, in fact, the bland conventional wisdom of the Anglo-American elite."
That's pretty much it, isn't it?
At the end of the day, Allen Ginsberg really is more interesting than Andrew Sullivan.
I eagerly await the day the entire staff (present and former) of the New Republic pulls a Butthole Surfers (who were former lawyers that one day kind of lost their minds) and begins publishing pieces like "the Liberal Case for Cannibalism" or "Mark Foley was right!"
Comments closed November 14, 2006.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Who are the 'we' that Sullivan is addressing in his title? The sort of conservatism he wants to rescue was never much of a factor in America to begin with.
Posted by Wade | October 31, 2006 1:58 PM