Andrew Sullivan

Andrew Michael Sullivan (born August 10,1963) is a conservative author and political commentator, distinguished by his often personal style of political analysis, and pioneering achievements in the field of blog journalism.

Sullivan is the former editor of The New Republic, known for his unusual personal-political identity (HIV-positive, gay, self-described conservative often at odds with other conservatives, and practising Roman Catholic). He is also the author of three books.

Sullivan is a speaker at major universities, colleges, and civic organizations in the United States, and a frequent guest on many national news and political commentary television shows in the United States and Europe. Born and raised in England, he has lived in the United States since 1984 and currently resides in Washington, D.C. and Provincetown, MA.

He was one of the most popular bloggers at Time Magazine. On Jan. 19, 2007, Sullivan announced through his blog that he would be leaving Time to work at the Atlantic Monthly and has since done so.

Early life

Sullivan was born in South Godstone, Surrey, England, to a Roman Catholic family of Irish descent, and received a B.A. in modern history from Oxford University (Magdalen College, Oxford), where in his second year he was elected president of the prestigious Oxford Union. He went on to earn a masters degree in public administration and a Ph.D. in government at Harvard University, where he wrote his dissertation on conservative British philosopher Michael Oakeshott. His adviser at Harvard University was the political philosopher Harvey Mansfield.

General political beliefs

Sullivan is a libertarian conservative who has most currently argued that the Republican Party has abandoned true conservative principles. After supporting George W. Bush in the 2000 Presidential election, he endorsed Senator John Kerry for President in 2004. In 2006, he supported the Democratic Party's takeover of Congress. His political philosophy includes a broad range of traditional conservative positions: He favors a flat tax, limited government, privatization of social security, and a strong military, and he opposes welfare state programs such as socialized medicine. However, on a number of controversial public issues — for instance, same-sex marriage and the death penalty — he takes a position typically shared by those on the left of the U.S. political spectrum. His position on abortion is more nuanced; saying that he personally finds it immoral and favors overturning Roe v. Wade, but he can accept legalized abortions in the first trimester.

Professional journalism

In 1986, he began his career with The New Republic magazine, serving as its editor from 1991 to 1996.[43]

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.

In 1994, Sullivan decided to publish excerpts on race and intelligence from Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's controversial The Bell Curve, which argued that some of the measured difference in IQ scores among racially defined groups was the result of genetic inheritance. Almost the entire staff of the magazine threatened to resign if material that they considered racist was allowed to be published; when the issue did come out, it included 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 editor-in-chief and co-owner, Martin Peretz.

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

His article in The New York Times Magazine about African-American bisexual men caused a controversy. Sullivan self-identifies as a member of the gay "bear community," writing in 2003 a whimsical and oft-cited Salon essay on the subject.

Sullivan is often compared to female bisexual academic Camille Paglia, an intellectual who argues from a non-leftist perspective.

Religion

Andrew Sullivan's Catholicism and view of Catholicism has been an occasional source of confusion or criticism. The Roman Catholic Church considers same-sex sexual activity to be a sin. Nevertheless, Sullivan maintains he qualifies as a Catholic.

His books have at times dealt with this issue. For example, in Virtually Normal (ISBN 0-679-42382-6), he argues that the Bible forbids same-sex sexual activity only when it is linked to prostitution or pagan ritual. His ideas are perhaps influenced by the writing of gay Roman Catholic John Boswell. (Both Sullivan and Boswell's views are generally not supported by official and traditional magisterial catholic teaching).

His views led him to have concerns about the election of Pope Benedict XVI. In Time Magazine for April 24, 2005 in an article entitled, "The Vicar of Orthodoxy," Sullivan stated his criticisms of the new pope. He expressed his view that the current pope is opposed to the modern world and women's rights, and deems gays and lesbians to be innately disposed to evil. His interpretation of the current pope's beliefs have been disputed by Michael Novak and criticized by many other Catholics. He has, however, agreed with Benedict's assertion that reason is an integral element of faith.

Blogging

In late 2000, Sullivan began his blog, The Daily Dish. In the wake of September 11, 2001, attacks, it 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 same-sex 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. Most of Sullivan's disputes with other conservatives have been over social issues such as these and the handling of postwar Iraq.

File:Dailydish.png

The layout of Sullivan's blog, the Daily Dish, before being moved to the servers of Time Magazine

Sullivan reluctantly decided to support John Kerry's presidential campaign due to his dissatisfaction with the handling of the postwar 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 and other fiscally conservative Republicans.

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

• the Michael Moore Award (originally the Susan Sontag award) for "egregious anti-Americanism in the war on terror"; 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 [44] 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 (for "cliché-ridden writing from the left and right intended to insult"; Ann Coulter is ineligible for this award so that, in Sullivan's own words, "Other people will have a chance.")
• the Matt Yglesias Award (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

Sullivan has recently expressed interest (at the suggestion of a reader) in creating a new award "honoring" Nancy Grace. The Nancy Grace Award would be bestowed on those evincing "lack of grace and empathy," a "stunning embrace of crassness and misplaced self-regard," and a "nauseating level of absolutist self-righteousness on the part of the Nominee."

In February 2005, Sullivan decided to go on "hiatus for a few months" after nearly five years of continuous blogging. 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 was 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?

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. This has allowed him to return to blogging full time. His blog has remained very popular since then.

On 19 January 2007, Sullivan announced that he was taking his blog from Time to the Atlantic Monthly magazine, where he had accepted an editorial post.

Same-sex marriage

Template:Portal Template:Gay rights Sullivan made a case for same-sex marriage in the 1980s, before the idea had become a major political goal of people in the LGBT community (and indeed, was and is the topic of some hostility). Andrew has argued the case for same-sex marriage on the basis that marriage is a unique institution that can codify love and commitment. Sullivan laid out his argument for same-sex marriage in his book Virtually Normal. In response, Michael Warner, a Rutgers University English professor and gay activist wrote The Trouble with Normal, which argued that Sullivan's desire to normalize gay men and lesbians through marriage was a dangerous move that would leave those individuals, straight, gay, or otherwise who did not want to marry without appropriate governmental and societal respect or protection.

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 lesbians and heterosexuals.

Andrew Sullivan, being gay himself, felt morally obligated to pursue same-sex marriage. He and his then-partner Chris B. were the leading activists in the early 1980s.

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.

LGBT and Queer studies series
gender · homosexuality · bisexuality · transgender
LGBT history
Timeline · LGBT social movements · Gay Liberation
Culture
Community · Drag · gay slang · gay village · Pride · Queer theory · Religion · separatist feminism · Symbols
Law
Marriage · Adoption · sodomy law
Categories

While he has long advocated same-sex marriage, Sullivan has drawn criticism for his 2006 dismissal of monogamy:

For me the interesting point came when Dan and I agreed that moderate hypocrisy - especially in marriages - is often the best policy. Momogamy (sic<i>) is very hard for men, straight or gay, and if one partner falters occasionally (and I don't mean regularly), sometimes discretion is perfectly acceptable. You could see Jong bridle at the thought of such dishonesty. But I think the post-seventies generation - those of us who grew up while our parents were having a sexual revolution - both appreciate the gains for sexual and emotional freedom, while being a little more aware of their potential hazards.

War on terrorism

Sullivan strongly supported the decision to go to war in Iraq, and he has generally been hawkish in the war on terror, arguing that weakness would embolden terrorists. In an October 14, 2001 posting that has been cited critically by Justin Raimondo, Sullivan announced that recent anthrax attacks had sealed his support for war on Iraq, including the possible use of nuclear weaponry by the United States:

The sophisticated form of anthrax delivered to Tom Daschle's office forces us to ask a simple question. What are these people trying to do? I think they're testing the waters. They want to know how we will respond to what is still a minor biological threat, as a softener to a major biological threat in the coming weeks. ...At this point, it seems to me that a refusal to extend the war to Iraq is not even an option. We have to extend it to Iraq. It is by far the most likely source of this weapon; it is clearly willing to use such weapons in the future; and no war against terrorism of this kind can be won without dealing decisively with the Iraqi threat. We no longer have any choice in the matter. Slowly, incrementally, a Rubicon has been crossed. The terrorists have launched a biological weapon against the United States. They have therefore made biological warfare thinkable and thus repeatable. We once had a doctrine that such a Rubicon would be answered with a nuclear response. We backed down on that threat in the Gulf War but Saddam didn't dare use biological weapons then. Someone has dared to use them now. Our response must be as grave as this new threat.

Sullivan has, however, 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 torture against detainees in U.S. custody and has had heated disputes with Heather MacDonald and fellow British-American John Derbyshire, among others, on that issue. Though Sullivan believes that enemy combatants in the war on terror should not be given status as prisoners of war because "terrorists are not soldiers," he also believes that the U.S. government must abide by the rules of war — in particular, Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions — when dealing with such detainees.

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. On the October 27, 2006 edition of Real Time with Bill Maher, he described conservatives and Republicans who refused to admit they had been wrong to support the Iraq War as "cowards," apparently implying that he was making this admission himself.

Disputes with conservatives and media figures

Sullivan has caused controversy for his heterodox conservative views and his strident attacks against fellow conservatives. He did not support the re-election of George W. Bush and has repeatedly suggested that much of the Republican Party has abandoned its conservative ideology and has stated that much of the party has been co-opted either by those he refers to as Christianists or, at other times, by a "Cult of Bush." In one recent post he described the ideology of many Republicans as "Christianist socialism."

James Lileks in response stated: "Of course, 'Christianist' is a term of Mr. Sullivan’s invention, and is infinitely applicable; I am probably a Christianist myself if I vote for someone who gives off that Christianist whiff, just as people who vote for Democrats are really closeted Communists, and Libertarians secretly want poor people to be heaped into graves and hosed with napalm."

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" , 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", 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."

He has been particularly critical of some conservatives' defense of the administration's actions involved in the Abu Ghraib and other prison scandals. Sullivan criticized Instapundit and Glenn Reynolds, NRO and Ramesh Ponnuru, and other conservative groups for not speaking out on the issue quicker and more forcefully. Sullivan was especially critical of Power Line, Michelle Malkin, Jeff Goldstein, and John Derbyshire, whom he has accused of active support of such tactics. Sullivan accuses Power Line and Hugh Hewitt of completely partisan and unconditional support for the Republican Party (which has hurt conservative principles). Sullivan frequently chides Slate blogger Mickey Kaus for his perceived anti-homosexual bias; the back-and-forth between the Daily Dish and Kausfiles has become an ongoing feud. Though Sullivan was very strong in his praise of George W. Bush immediately after 9/11, he has recently called such views "stupid and premature" in retrospect. He has similarly since characterized the president as a "shallow, monstrous, weak, and petty man." In response to suggestions by Sullivan that Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld may have intentionally refused to support the Iraq War effort (during occupation), conservative warblog Ace of Spades did a parody of Sullivan's Daily Dish site.

Sullivan aligned himself with commentators such as Glenn Greenwald, Jack Balkin, and Marty Lederman.

Andrew Sullivan is especially critical of Mel Gibson, considering the actor to be a misogynist, homophobe, and anti-Semite. Sullivan was outspoken against The Passion of the Christ, believing it to be an anti-Semitic work that would inflame such prejudices, especially in the Arab world. Sullivan is also critical of Gibson's ultra-conservative pre-Vatican II Catholic beliefs. Sullivan has argued that Gibson's statements during his July 2006 DUI arrest only confirm what he has been saying all along. Sullivan has been outspoken in attacking commentators on the right whom he contends are apologists for supporting Gibson after his arrest; also those whom he believes have not been forceful enough in condemning Gibson. Sullivan was especially critical of Hugh Hewitt. James Lileks, in defense of Hewitt, accused Sullivan of "intellectual shabbiness" and an unfair attack.

War on Drugs

Sullivan has written blog entries criticizing the excess of War on Drugs. He argued that study showed alcohol is more toxic dangerous than cannabis, yet the former is legal and the latter is illegal. He gave examples that government has used torture in the War on Drugs. Regarding to the cannabis prohibition, he wrote,

For my part, I find the attempt to ban any naturally growing plant to be an attack on reality, and a denial of some of the most basic freedoms. I guess that's why today's GOP is so in favor of it.

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 considerably 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.

Controversies

In May 2001, Village Voice columnist Michael Musto said that Sullivan had anonymously posted advertisements for bareback sex (anal 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. Later, in a defiant blog post titled Sexual McCarthyism:An article no-one should have to write, Sullivan confirmed the allegations while lashing out at his detractors:

It is true that I had an AOL screenname/profile for meeting other gay men. It is true that I posted an ad some time ago on a site for other gay men devoted to unprotected sex.

Sullivan's critics have argued that it was hypocritical of Sullivan to engage in this kind of sexual activity while 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 is HIV-positive, it was unsafe for him to engage in sex without a condom. Sullivan's critics also contend 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, in his response Sexual McCarthyism:An article no-one should have to write, noted that his advertisement stated that he was HIV-positive and he intended to only have bareback sex with consenting adults who were also HIV-positive. According to Sullivan, limiting unprotected sex to other HIV-positive men reduces the risk inherent in the behavior. Moreover, he criticized 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 have also argued that it was a violation of his privacy to publish information about his sex life. Sullivan has argued 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 (pub. 1999), Sullivan writes:

"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.

Endorsements

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

• 1992- Bill Clinton
• 1996- Bob Dole
• 2000- George W. Bush
• 2004- John F. Kerry

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

List of works

• Sullivan, Andrew (1995). Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality. Knopf. ISBN 0-679-42382-6.
• Sullivan, Andrew (1998). Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex and Survival. Knopf. ISBN 0-679-45119-6.
• Sullivan, Andrew (2006). The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-018877-4.

Other notable projects and interviews

• A Union In Wait

References

External links

• Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish
• Andrew Sullivan discusses The Conservative Soul during a Cato Institute forum
• Andrew Sullivan's own biographical statement
• The New Republic
• In Defense of Andrew Sullivan
• Michelangelo Signorile Comments
• Risky business
• Andrew Sullivan, Overexposed
• Andrew 3.0
• Andrew Sullivan talks about his book The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back Hosted by the Cato Institute, Oct. 3, 2006. C-SPAN2 Book TV video
• Is Religion 'Built Upon Lies'? Sullivan's Beliefnet debate with Sam Harris

This article is based on a GNU FDL LGBT Wikia article: Sullivan Andrew Sullivan

LGBT