Andrew Sullivan, normally a blogger with whom I agree, is pushing WAY too hard on this one:
Here's a revealing sentence from National Review's profile of Roger Simon, ex-lefty blogger: "[When] it comes to social policy, he continues to lean hard to the left. 'I'm very liberal on social issues: pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, separation of church and state,' he says. 'I think racism and sexism are the greatest evils in the world.'" So allowing women to choose to seek an abortion is now a "hard left" position? And encouraging gay couples to have stable relationships is "hard left"? And being deeply concerned about racism and sexism is "hard left"? I won't even touch "separation of church and state."
Simon's own words belie Sullivan's protests. "Very liberal" is equivalent to "hard left", just as "very conservative" is equivalent to "hard right". Sure, there is a value judgement applied, but it's not as bad as Sullivan makes it appear.
Besides, Sullivan is a bit disingenuous with the way he frames the issues: "Encouraging gay couples to have stable relationships" is NOT the same as his vociferous support of gay marriage, and it is Simon himself, not NR, who characterizes opposition to racism and sexism as liberal. IN no way does NR endorse racism or sexism. Sullivan should know better; this is a tactic worthy of intellectual lightweights like Robert Scheer.
FWIW, I agree with both of them on the issues they raise, although my support of abortion is likely far less vigorous than either of theirs, and I don't have the visceral opposition to expressions of faith that many liberals and gays possess. I don't like it when it starts determining policy, but I don't want a government full of secular humanists any more than I want a government of fundamentalist Christians.
UPDATE—No, I had not read The Corner before composing this entry. Apparently I was not the only one to note that Sullivan is off the mark.
posted on June 04, 2004 10:10 PM
Comments:
Post a comment
posted by 
