Andrew Sullivan

From Free net encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 22:06, 19 April 2006
Neilc (Talk | contribs)
rv to last by 206.124.220.199
Next diff →

Current revision

Template:Cleanup-verify

Image:Andrew Sullivan.jpg Andrew Sullivan, Ph.D. (born August 10, 1963) is an English-American journalist, blogger and former editor of The New Republic, known both for his heterodox personal-political identity (HIV-positive, gay, conservative, and practicing Roman Catholic) and for his efforts in the field of blog journalism. Sullivan has described himself as being a South Park Republican, a phrase he coined in 2001 and which has gained considerable currency since.

Andrew Sullivan is also a popular speaker at major universities and civic organizations in the U.S. and a frequent guest on many national news and political commentary television shows in the United States and Europe.

Contents

[edit]

Biography

Sullivan was born in Surrey, England, to a Roman Catholic family of Irish descent, and received a B.A. in modern history from Oxford University (Magdalen College, Oxford). He went on to earn a masters degree in public administration and a Ph.D. in government at Harvard University, writing his dissertation on conservative British philosopher Michael Oakeshott. In 1986 he began his career with The New Republic magazine, serving as its editor from 1991 to 1996.[1]

In that position, he expanded the magazine from its traditional roots in political coverage to cultural politics and the issues around them. This produced some groundbreaking journalism, but also courted several high-profile controversies.

Some longtime subscribers, who had never forgiven Sullivan for firing veteran political writer Morton Kondracke when he took over, regularly took umbrage at the articles written by Camille Paglia that he published. One particular article about Hillary Rodham Clinton led to some readers writing letters to Martin Peretz, saying they intended to cancel their subscriptions. Template:Citeneeded

Image:TNR Bell Curve cover.jpg

Sullivan decided in 1994 to publish excerpts on race and intelligence from Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's controversial The Bell Curve, which argued that African Americans' lower IQ scores than whites' were, at least in part, the result of genetics. Almost the entire staff of the magazine threatened to resign if material which they considered racist was allowed to be published Template:Citeneeded; when the issue did come out, it ran with lengthy rebuttals from more than a dozen writers and contributors.

Sullivan's departure as editor of The New Republic is also not without controversy. Even among those who wrote for The New Republic at the time, opinions differ about whether he was fired or quit after losing a bitter power struggle with Leon Wieseltier, the magazine's literary editor and a longtime friend of Peretz's. In any event, Sullivan had only recently gone public with his HIV status, and was likely to be taking a break for treatment soon. Regardless, Andrew Sullivan is currently a senior editor of TNR.

Later, Sullivan wrote for The New York Times Magazine briefly. He left the magazine in 2002.

Sullivan is often compared to lesbian academic, Camille Paglia, another gay intellectual who argues from a non-leftist perspective and who wrote for The New Republic under his tenure as editor.

[edit]

Controversies

In May 2001, Village Voice columnist Michael Musto said that Sullivan had anonymously posted advertisements for bareback sex (anal sex and / or oral sex without a condom) on America Online and the now-defunct website barebackcity.com. Subsequently, the Italian-American journalist and activist Michelangelo Signorile wrote about the scandal in a front-page article in a New York gay magazine LGNY, igniting a storm of controversy.

Sullivan's critics Template:Citeneeded have argued that it was hypocritical of Sullivan to engage in this kind of sexual activity while simultaneously arguing against gay sexual promiscuity; they claim that the vision of gay sexuality presented in Sullivan's writing is at odds with the activities he was said to be engaging in. They also charge that because Sullivan was HIV-positive, it was unsafe for him to engage in sex without a condom. Sullivan's critics Template:Citeneeded argue that it is unfair for Sullivan to criticize Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions as "reckless" while engaging in unprotected sex himself. This scandal was parodied in the popular gay television show Queer as Folk. In one episode a well-known gay political commentator condemns a 30 year old gay man for dating an 18 year old, only to be later caught attending a bareback sex party.

Sullivan's defenders Template:Citeneeded respond that the advertisement noted that Sullivan was HIV-positive, and that Sullivan only had bareback sex with consenting adults who were also HIV-positive. According to Sullivan, this significantly reduced the risk inherent in his behavior, and he has derided what he called a "thin reed of evidence" of the existence of "reinfection," which, according to medical professionals, heightens the destruction caused by the virus. His supporters Template:Citeneeded have also argued that it was a violation of his privacy to publish information about his sex life. Sullivan has called the scandal "sexual McCarthyism". Sullivan supporters Template:Citeneeded also argue that those who revealed the details about his sex life were motivated by a desire for payback because they disagreed with his politics and his comments about the gay community. In Sullivan's book Love Undetectable, published in 1999, Sullivan wrote:

Although I never publicly defended promiscuity, I never publicly attacked it. I attempted to avoid the subject, in part because I felt, and often still feel, unable to live up to the ideals I really hold.

Sullivan's journalistic ethics were called into question when he announced that he would be accepting a sponsorship to write his blog The Daily Dish, from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the lobby for the industry that he credited with saving his life, but which has also been criticized for its practices in AIDS-affected areas of the Third World. The controversy lay in Sullivan's initial refusal to disclose the relationship in writing outside his blog, even though much of that often touches on drug manufacturers and their policies in poor countries. He dropped the sponsorship in the ensuing uproar.

[edit]

Blogging

In late 2000 he began his blog The Daily Dish. In the wake of September 11, 2001 attacks, his blog became one of the most popular political blogs on the Internet. By the middle of 2003, it was receiving about 300,000 unique visits per month. Between starting his blog and ending his New Republic editorship, Sullivan wrote two works on homosexuality, arguing for its social acceptance on libertarian grounds. His writing appears in a number of widely-read publications. He currently serves as a columnist for The Sunday Times of London.

Sullivan's blog has been characterized by passionate argumentation and a willingness to admit doubts and entertain changes of mind. The blog's core principles have been fiscal conservatism, limited government, and libertarianism on social issues. Sullivan opposes government involvement with respect to sexual and consensual matters between adults (such as the use of marijuana). Sullivan believes recognition of gay marriage is a civil rights issue, but is willing to promote it on a state by state legislative federalism basis rather than trying to judicially impose the change. [2] Most of Sullivan's disputes with other conservatives have been over social issues such as these and the handling of postwar Iraq. Image:Dailydish.png

Sullivan reluctantly decided to support John Kerry's presidential campaign due to his dissastisfaction with the handling of the post-war situation in Iraq by the Bush administration, their views on gay rights, and their fiscal policy. Sullivan is a supporter of John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger [3] and other fiscally conservative but socially liberal Republicans.

Sullivan also gives out "awards" each year on various public statements that parody those of people the awards are named. These awards include:

  • the Michael Moore Award (originally the Susan Sontag award) for "egregious anti-Americanism in the war on terror" [4]; later for "egregious moral equivalence in the war on terror"
  • the John Derbyshire Award (for "egregious and outlandish comments on gays, women and minorities")
  • the Paul Begala Award (for extreme liberal hyperbole)
  • the Nicholas Von Hoffman [5] Award (for "egregiously bad predictions on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars")
  • the Brent Scowcroft Award (for "continued punditry on Iraq after egregiously bad predictions on Afghanistan")
  • the Michelle Malkin Award [6] (for "cliché-ridden writing from the left and right intended to insult")
  • the Matt Yglesias Award [7]) (which is "an award for bloggers — or anyone else for the matter — who are prepared to alienate their core readership with some unpleasant truths")
  • the "Poseur Alert" for those who pretend to know what they are talking about [8]

In February 2005 Sullivan decided to go on "hiatus for a few months" after nearly five years of continuous blogging. [9] By this time his blog was receiving over 50,000 visitors a day, and was among the most linked-to blogs in the world. Sullivan planned to work on a book, do some traveling, and focus on other projects. His plan is to return to blogging "full steam" in roughly nine months. In response to readers who asked whether his continuing blogging meant that he had given up on his "hiatus", he wrote:

In deference to my relationship (and my sanity), I'm not blogging in the early hours any more… I blog when I feel like it… The pressure to promise something every day first thing no longer haunts me... But I'm making progress on the book and writing longer stuff. It's all about balance, no? [10]

He attributes his ability to "blog, write my usual columns and work on my book" simultaneously to an increase in energy after being fitted with a CPAP machine to help him sleep. [11] This has allowed him to return to blogging full time. His blog has remained very popular since then.

[edit]

Gay marriage

Sullivan made a case for gay marriage in the 1980s, before the idea had become a major political goal of people in the LGBT community (and indeed, was actually even the topic of some hostility). Andrew has argued the case for gay marriage on the basis that marriage is a unique institution that can codify love and commitment. Gay men and women have historically been denied the stability and commitment that marriage provides, and this has thus led to a variety of social and emotional problems for the community.

Sullivan has been very critical of civil unions, which he has dubbed "marriage lite." He has argued that civil unions will only serve to weaken the unique status of marriage, both for gays and heterosexuals.

In the 2004 election, Sullivan criticized the Republican Party for what he saw as political exploitation of a hated minority:

I've been trying to think of what to say about what appears to be the enormous success the Republicans had in using gay couples' rights to gain critical votes in key states. In eight more states now, gay couples have no relationship rights at all. Their legal ability to visit a spouse in hospital, to pass on property, to have legal protections for their children has been gutted. If you are a gay couple living in Alabama, you know one thing: your family has no standing under the law; and it can and will be violated by strangers. I'm not surprised by this. When you put a tiny and despised minority up for a popular vote, the minority usually loses.[12]
[edit]

War on terrorism

Sullivan strongly supported the decision to go to war in Iraq. He has generally been hawkish in the war on terror, arguing that weakness would embolden terrorists. However, he has harshly criticized the Bush administration for its postwar efforts, especially regarding the numbers of troops, protection of munitions, and treatment of prisoners. Sullivan strongly opposes the use of coercive force against detainees in U.S. custody and has had heated disputes with Heather MacDonald [13] and fellow British-American John Derbyshire, among others, on that issue. Though Sullivan originally believed that enemy combatants in the war on terror should not be given status as prisoners of war because "terrorists are not soldiers", he currently believes that the "systematic abuse, torture [and] beating" that has occurred against uncharged inmates since 2002 means that the U.S. government cannot be trusted to treat prisoners well unless constrained by the rules of war. [14] This opposition to Bush's policies has caused many disputes with other conservatives, who argue that he is changing his support for the war itself.

[edit]

Other disputes with conservatives

Sullivan has caused controversy because he frequently attacks conservatives. He did not support the re-election of George W. Bush, endorsed John Kerry in 2004, and has repeatedly suggested that much of the Republican Party has abandoned its conservative ideology (which he defines largely according to small-government, libertarian principles). In a recent post he described the ideology of the modern Republicans as Christianist socialism.

In three days he wrote in three different places that "[c]onservatism is a philosophy without a party in America any more. It has been hijacked by zealots and statists" [15] that "[w]e're getting to the point when conservatism has become a political philosophy that believes that government — at the most distant level — has the right to intervene in almost anything to achieve the right solution. Today's conservatism is becoming yesterday's liberalism" [16] and that "the only real difference between the Democrats and Republicans at this point is that the Democrats believe in big, solvent government and the Republicans believe in an even bigger, insolvent government" [17].

He has been particularly critical of some conservatives' defense of the administration's actions involved in the Abu Ghraib and other prison scandals.

[edit]

Consistency

One of the most common charges Sullivan addresses is that he is inconsistent, that his views on certain policies (such as the desirability of invading Iraq) and people (such as George W. Bush) change radically over time. A typical defense of his changing views follows:

If you want to read a blog that will always take the position of the Bush administration on the war, there are plenty out there. Ditto if you want to read a relentlessly anti-Bush blog, like Kos. But this blog is a little different. It's an attempt to think out loud, which means there will be shifts over time in argument and emphasis. It may appear wishy-washy or excitable or whatever. But it's my best attempt to figure things out as I go along. If you don't like it, read someone else.... I try and read as much criticism of my fallible work as I can. [18]
[edit]

Endorsements

Sullivan often makes reference to his past presidential endorsements. They are:

His endorsements of Democrats have usually been hesistant. In the case of Kerry, he stated that his endorsement was primarily against Bush.

[edit]

List of works

[edit]

External links

Retrieved from "http://www.netipedia.com/index.php/Andrew_Sullivan"