I read Andrew Sullivan because he's as far to the right as I seem to be able to read regularly and not completely shut down with exasperation. I also think he has been one of the most vocal critics of the administration's torture policies and its unconsctitutional notions of executive power. I didn't start reading him until around the 2004 election, when he very reluctantly endored Kerry, so I'm not familiar with his "wingnut" phase. He often posts interesting bits on morality and sexuality (like the one I link to in my blog, see below).
I completely disagree with his animosity towards much of government spending, and it's painful to watch him cling to his Catholic church in the face of that institution's deeply ingrained homophobia. And I disagree with his "I think the Iraq war was a good idea but Rumsfeld screwed it up" position on the war. (I think the invasion was a dumb and immoral idea from the get go.) But he seems to be someone who, although exasperatingly conservative and very distrustful of those of us on the left, is willing to let reality in and affect him. And given the state of much of the conservative puditocracy, that is a very attractive feature.
In short, I read (and occasionally even link to him, as I do here) Andrew Sullivan because I don't know in advance whether I will agree with him or not. And that makes reading him interesting. I feel he's a conservative I could have an actual argument with, rather than one who is completely in a different world.
Someone on DailyKos asked, "Who the hell is Andrew Sullivan and why does anyone read him?" While I don't really know much about who he is, here is my reply as to why I read him:
I feel similarly about David Brooks. Sometimes I feel he's right on (e.g. Bobos in Paradise), other times he just seems like another shill for the GOP.
Comments