My favorite so-called conservative has been writing quite a few harsh words about Martha Coakley in the past few days, and not all of them completely fair, in my view. (Though with some of his points I agree in kind if not degree. For example, even as a fan of Coakley’s, I’m uncomfortable with the potentially alienating ads about all rape victims being turned away from hospitals; Sullivan calls them “truly vile”.
Still, Sullivan has a strong message for Massachusetts voters who profess to care about health care, the environment, sane foreign policy, and human rights — and yet would consider voting against Coakley:
First off, there’s no compromise with the current GOP. They make Gingrich look like Pope John XXIII. If they got back majorities in the Congress, there will be no debt reduction; there will simply be nihilism until they can try to beat Obama in 2012.
Secondly, there’s a lie masquerading as analysis going around. And that is that the health insurance bill is some sort of radical idea, fomented by “radical leftists”, etc etc. This is propaganda. In fact, the final bill is exactly where a sane compromise is to be found: near-universal coverage; no single payer; no public option; reforms for pre-existing conditions and other injustices; cost control mechanisms; Medicare cuts; deficit reduction. 16 years after the Clintons tried, it’s a more moderate bill. It was widely debated in the campaign. It isn’t perfect. It needs work. But it’s a start.
The blame for the delay lies fundamentally with a GOP that is still intent on putting power before country, and decided the day Obama took office that he was such a threat to their beleaguered brand that they would oppose everything he proposed, demonize him as much as possible, forgo any cooperation, and then try to blame him for the recession, the wars, the unemployment, and the debt he inherited … while never actually proposing any serious alternative on any of them.
It is a nihilist, populist, primal scream. And if the Massachusetts result is interpreted as a vindication of that strategy, we will have thrown away a very rare constructive moment for targeted government action to tackle the deep problems – healthcare access and cost, too much reliance on carbon energy, an empire bogged down in two quagmires, a debt that will soon threaten this country’s currency – in favor of news cycle, tactical Rovian bullshit.
The Dems have been incompetent and petty; the Republicans have been nihilist. The dawdling of the last few weeks is unforgivable. But Obama’s attempt to produce reform through the center is the best chance we’ve now got. The last time I urged a vote for someone I found as dreadful as a candidate as Coakley was John Kerry. Because the alternative was so much worse.
So think of this as 2004. Are you really, really going to give Bush a second term because Kerry is so easily portrayed as an elitist hack? C’mon, Massachusetts Independents. Give the president the chance he needs. I know it sucks. But vote Coakley.
(I tried to figure out what to excerpt, but then ended up pasting all of Sullivan’s paragraphs. His words were in response to a reader’s comments with are worth a look as well.)
His opinion of anything as ‘vile’ is worthless.
<
p>Just remember when you read Sullivan talking about how bad the Republicans are, he, as editor of The New Republic, published the racist theories of the Bell Curve and the lies of Betsy McCaughey (‘No Exit’), thus helping Gingrich and his crew win power.
<
p>And these Republicans are simply following the same techniques Gingrich used.
<
p>(Oh, and Sully was a great cheerleader for George W. Bush’s war in Iraq.)
<
p>Sullivan’s actions in the national discourse have been, on balance, wrong and harmful to the well-being of numerous Americans, most of whom made a lot less money than Sully and his elite friends.
<
p>And he is still considering an important perspective to be included in the discourse.
I started reading Sullivan’s blog about a year ago, and was surprised to find that the majority of the time I agree with what he writes and appreciate that he expresses so eloquently what I sometimes struggle to find words for. From the reader comments he posts, I think most of his current readership are liberal.
<
p>For what it’s worth, he has officially announced that he no longer considers himself part of “the right”.
<
p>I have to admit mostly ignorance about his history before joining the Atlantic, though; thanks for telling me a little about that.
He’s just changing with the prevailing fashion to stay current and effective, but not evolving. The New York Times was right there with Andrew Sullivan when he was saying things like “I love Rummy”. They published the pictures of the Buddha statues that the Taliban destroyed on the front page in March of 2001, and were pushing for an invasion of Afghanistan to avenge the September attacks even more than Bush was, who they mocked for moving too slowly.
This reader has a young daughter with Type I diabetes:
<
p>
<
p>
.
Andrew Sullivan has evolved quite a bit since his days of supporting the Iraq War. I hadn’t realized quite how horrid he had been. Thank for you for that.
<
p>I can’t explain his transformation, but something has happened. Something positive even.
In my view, Sullivan epitomizes sincerity and the willingness to acknowledge when he he has been wrong. His voice is too unique to say that he is following prevailing winds or a crowd.
<
p>For example, no one has been more relentless at exposing and deploring the torture promoted by Bush-Cheney and the lies, danger, and idiocy of Sarah Palin and those who promoted her. And there are few who articulate their admiration for Obama’s efforts and accomplishments as well as he does.
<
p>On the points where Sullivan does come at things from a more conservative angle, I found his point of view far more thoughtful and interesting than that of 95% of the differently-winged folks who visit BMG.