How Else Has Andrew Sullivan Changed?

Actually, Sullivan has changed in many ways if one were to read his archives. Too bad, as I understand it, he hasn't made that as easy as he might have. But some folks do remember Andrew Sullivan when.

Comments

[seekeronos]

I think "Randy Andy" is simply coming home to what he truly is: a far left liberal gay man.

99.95% of LGBTs are by default extremely liberal, as that is the only political affiliation that openly "welcomes" them (truth be told, they are as much fodder for campaign buses as any other "identity politics" group), and they may well be at their best on the far, mouth-breathing left along with the Kossacks decrying everything as Bush's fault, or the fault of the Christians (nevermind radical Islamists slamming airliners into buildings... to the Kossacks, it might as well be as if evil in the world hadn't existed long before either the Bush clan or the incarnation of Jesus Christ in the flesh).

It is possible that LGBTs *could* be conservative (likely in the more strict libertarian, agnostic, fiscally and defense conservative, socially indifferent or liberal way)... but they risk alienating their core support group of other LGBTS

Andy S. was a minority within a minority - with about 1.5% of the population as LGBTs, and only 0.05% of that pro-GOP conservatives... Andy would have had a hard time finding companionship in an otherwise small sea of mostly far left leaning gays.

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

How as Sullivan changed? It's really easy. He, like many many other Americans has realized that modern "conservatism" is inherently evil, exclusionary, elitist, violent, hypocritical, dishonest, bigoted, backward, wholly lacking in principle, incompetent, anti-science, anti-reason, anti-American, and treasonous.

Many of us have known this all along. But Sullivan was making a lot of money towing the winger line for quite a while. And as the saying goes: one can not expect a man to understand something, when he is paid to not understand it. I guess he doesn't need the money any more.

[SacTownMan]

The THC Abuser has listed every negative adjective he could find to describe "modern conservatism". You left off unholy and satan worshipers (sorry those are more aimed at liberals)!

The problem is he knows nothing about the conservative mind.

Many conservatives had to sit in college classes and have some old stoner loser from the 70's bad mouth America and tell us why we needed government to "help us" and "fix" things. The overwhelming lack of balance in our institutions of "higher" learning is actually geared to produce non-thinking haters like the THC Abuser.

This conservative was shaped by the concept of Laissez-faire or government hands off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

"Laissez-faire activists support no state intervention on economic issues, which implies free markets, minimal taxes, minimal regulations and private ownership of property. They support certain kinds negative liberty and as opposed to positive liberty, such as wealth redistribution, given by the state. However, some self-identified laissez-faire proponents, like progressive libertarians and especially those who attend to the Chicago School, prefer Milton Friedman's negative income tax as a replacement to the existing welfare system, arguing that it is simpler and has fewer of the "perverse incentives" of "government handouts".

Their opposition to wealth distribution is based on the belief that it takes capital from the most productive sectors of the economy to the less productive sectors, and is enforcing economic egalitarianism, which reduces productivity and the incentive to work. They may further argue that any temporary equality of outcome gained by redistribution would quickly collapse without coercion because people have different levels of motivation and native abilities, and would make different choices based on their differing values. Material inequality, they argue, is a necessary outcome of the freedom to choose one's own actions without imposing on others."

The differences are simple you and Barry want to take from the "rich" and give to the "poor". While this concept might have worked for Robin Hood in todays world there is not enough capital to "fix" all of the it's problems. While wealth redistribution sounds great to the have-nots it discourages individuals from achieving anything other than what the government deems they need.

You may trust in the government to take care of you, coddle you and feed you but I worry more that they just want to take away your individuality and control you!