Every once in a while I skim through Andrew Sullivan’s blog, just to pump up my blood pressure, I guess. There is no one else out there more inconsistent in his arguments, more self-righteous about his positions, and more libelous of everybody else’s motivations. The problem with politics these days is the utter lack of open minds–the inability to consider for even an instant that the other guy wants something good for his country and his family, and that he’s not abject evil with arms and legs. Consider Sullivan on the matter of torture. As on so many issues, he’s not only certain he’s right, he’s screaming for the blood of those who had to make hard decisions about protecting America in the wake of 9/11. Heaven have mercy on Sullivan if he had been responsible in those days for the lives of Americans. Would he have clung to his precious academic posturings, or would he have acted to protect his fellow countrymen to the best of his abilty, knowing that the ingrateful among them could and would come along and second-guess his best efforts years down the road? If America had suffered subsequent attacks after 9/11 and President Bush hadn’t taken the actions he did, it is reasonable to believe that Sullivan would have been at the head of the line to say Bush was negligent for not doing everything he could have, and that the terror debate was over mere semantics compared that can’t compare to the lives lost.
Maybe Sullivan is right about “enhanced interrogation techniques.” I don’t think he is, but I’m willing to consider that he’s right and I’m wrong. And that’s the difference between Andrew Sullivan and me.

Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here