Andrew Sullivan Sunday Times Article. Hubris Ascendant The Republican Temptation -- Welcome To The Crzy House

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:39:41 04/30/03 Wed
Author: Markus
Subject: Andrew Sullivan Sunday Times Article. Hubris Ascendant The Republican Temptation
In reply to: Markus 's message, "Andrew Sullivan's NOT a Republican?!?!?!?!!!" on 08:08:53 04/30/03 Wed

(If you just want to read his comments about Senator Santorum scroll down to the bold type.)

Hubris Ascendant
The Republican Temptation

These have been heady days for American conservatives and neoconservatives. Vindication doesn't come very often in politics, but the end of the Iraq war was surely one of those occasions. Rarely has the far left seemed so out of it, so discredited, so marginal. And rarely has the sensible liberal left seemed so mealy-mouthed and incoherent. At times, in the past couple of weeks, the opposition found itself almost hoping for Shiite revolt to discredit the president, or praying for an economic downturn to change the political momentum.

But it turns out the Democrats and the left may not have to do too much. There are ominous signs that the Republicans could unravel their recent achievements all on their own. Hubris is in the air. And with hubris come mistakes. Republican leaders and thinkers, high on the narcotic of victory, have begun saying things that seem reckless, inflammatory and downright damaging to the president.

A case in point: our old friend, Newt Gingrich, former revolutionary Speaker of the House and an expert in hubris in his own lifetime. He took the stage last week to launch a ferocious tirade against an old nemesis, Colin Powell, and the State Department. Gingrich has a point. The State Department has indeed long been a repository of old and discredited Arabist thinking in the Middle East. It undermined the run-up toward war in Iraq and is busy machinating for its own purposes in post-war Iraqi politics. Critiques of it have been written; discussions initiated; dinner parties animated by what is an ancient Washington topic. But Gingrich, as is his wont, went much further - and in public.

Gingrich accused the State Department of a "diplomatic failure" in the run-up to the Iraq war, as if the treachery of France and Russia could have been smoothed over by better diplomacy. He further accused Powell's department of a "deliberate and systematic effort to undermine the President's policies." Furious that the White House has engaged muscular diplomacy against Syria, rather than military force, Gingrich further ripped into Powell's planned visit to meet Bashir Assad in Damascus. "The concept of the American Secretary of State going to Damascus to meet with a terrorist supporting, secret police wielding dictator is ludicrous," Gingrich thundered. He did all this at the American Enterprise Institute, the home of many of the smartest conservative intellectuals in Washington. This wasn't a whisper campaign; it had the subtlety of a fog-horn.

In broader American politics, there is no contest between Gingrich, one of the most despised national politicians in recent times, and Powell, a broadly respected national icon. But in Washington politics, the factions they represent are much more equally matched. Nevertheless, if this was an attempt to influence the president, it's hard to think of a dumber or cruder strategy. George W. Bush is extremely close to Powell; the president understands the importance of a diplomatic voice at the cabinet table; and the neoconservative view that somehow Powell represents the diametric opposite of Bush's worldview is crude and naive. Gingrich's public attack on Powell was rightly interpreted by the White House as a public attack on the president.

Suddenly, the Democratic candidates who want to undermine Bush's leadership in foreign affairs now have a leading Republican to back them up. This wasn't even a sly, Brent Scowcroft-type, off-the-record quote. It was a broadside, and a sign that Republican splits over foreign policy could deepen.

That's especially true with respect to Israel and the Middle East in general. You're beginning to see two rival conceptions of Bush's future foreign policy emerge in Washington. The first is an unapologetic quick-exit from Iraq, military pressure on Syria, brinkmanship with North Korea, and full backing for Sharon. The second is a real commitment to military and political engagement in Iraq, a lengthy process of democratization, multilateral talks with Pyongyang, combined with a kick-start to the Arab-Israeli "road-map."

The likelihood, of course, is a mix of the two, depending on events. But already, conservatives and Republicans are fighting over what's ahead. The neoconservatives are likely to object to even the slightest pressure on Israel, while centrists and paleoconservatives will be egging Powell on.

Similarly, traditional Burkean conservatives will be skeptical of the attempt to bring democracy to Iraq, while Millite neocons will want a new Marshall Plan. I exaggerate a little. But the strains within Bush's coalition, largely muted by widespread agreement on war against Saddam, will revive.

Domestically, there's an even bigger Republican split. George W. Bush spent part of last week in Ohio, touting his huge $700 billion plus tax cut plan. The trouble is that key Republican Senators, including one from, er, Ohio, have cut that plan almost in half. That happened at the height of the war. Can you imagine how less restrained these Senators will feel in peacetime? Deficit hawks among conservatives are now facing off against the supply-siders' fantasy that slashing taxes while you boost spending somehow has no damaging fiscal effect. The friction is palpable, and Bush is caught between the two factions.

And then last week, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum opened his big mouth to the Associated Press. He equated gay sex with child abuse and bestiality. He claimed that those Catholic priests who had abused minors were actually guilty of a "basic homosexual relationship."

Furthermore, he said he supported sodomy laws that in several states still make it illegal to have consensual, private gay sex. If gays had a "right to privacy," he argued, why doesn't that also apply to incest or bigamy?

While most people thought that the debate on gay rights was now about marriage or discrimination laws, Santorum invoked the ancient spectre of the police having the power to arrest people in their own bedrooms for consensual sex. And indeed, a recent Texas case in which that had just happened, is now before the Supreme Court.

It made no sense to open up this debate when the Court may soon make it moot, but when you're riding high and a Catholic who found John F Kennedy's balance of church and state too secular, the temptation to mouthe off is irresistible.

Besides, it will help Santorum's fundraising.

For a certain section of the Republican base, keeping homosexuals in their place is a key reason for being in politics at all. But for a whole swathe of others in the West, Northeast and Midwest, this kind of government intrusion into private homes is anathema to conservative principles.

In an instant, Santorum revealed the huge gap in Republican circles between social liberals and libertarians who fear government power and generally support a live-and-let-live philosophy, and the religious right that believes the government should be able to police morality, even in people's own homes.

Santorum's gaffe was made more important by his being the third-ranking Republican in the Senate. It evoked memories of Trent Lott's wistful tribute to racial segregation.

Centrist Republican senators chided Santorum. "Discrimination and bigotry have no place in our society, and I believe Senator Santorum's unfortunate remarks undermine Republican principles of inclusion and opportunity," opined Maine Senator Olympia Snowe (who also voted against the huge tax cut). Ouch.

The rest of the party kept silent, while the conservative chattering classes played an awkward partisan defense of Santorum.

Don't get me wrong. This isn't a full-scale conservative crack-up. But it isn't a good sign. For three years, Bush has managed the unwieldy and fractious Republican coalition with deftness, vagueness, and skill. He has managed to nail down the base, while not alienating the middle of the country, where he knows he needs support. But the war has been a huge advantage in this process; and post-Iraq, when domestic issues begin to grab more attention, the environment could well deteriorate.

For much of last week, Washington was buzzing not about Iraq but about Gingrich and Santorum. The Republican faultlines that helped destroy Bush's father have not, it turns out, disappeared. Bush is going to need every ounce of political capital to keep them from undermining his re-election.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

A commentary about Santorum from the New Yorker. "DOG BITES MAN" -- Pete, 13:59:16 04/30/03 Wed