Appel Explains Andrew's Obsession

Writing at The Dish, Patrick Appel attempts to rationalize Andrew Sullivan's obsession over Trig Palin's birth. But there is a problem with this rationale.

I suspect With few writers around to counter Andrew's analysis, he wasn't cut short and forcefully rebuked before things got out of control, and he was therefore free to construct his own narrative.

For that to be true, one would have to assume that reality doesn't exist. Just because Andrew has lost touch with it doesn't make it go away when cobbling together a narrative of observable events. And I'm not convinced Heisenberg really applies in this case.

Comments

[Mrs. Peperium]

It sounds as if, to misquote Conor, that Andrew has a problem with narrative. The stubborn facts of pregnancy labor, and birth contradict pieties left, right, and libertarian, occassionally forcing Andrew to revise his thinking- incorrectly. But his critiques of Sarah Palin intrinsically resisted the narrative form. He couldn't foresee the unintended consequences of saying she didn't give birth to Trig. Andrew tried to pinpoint the particular threats to liberty posed by a worldly, religious, and (clearly fertile to most men,) female vice president but he failed. Horribly.

[mark l.]

"free to construct his own narrative"=incapable of governing himself.

this isn't exactly a new revelation about sullivan.

[Brian]

How about a defamation and libel lawsuit against him and his employer?

[RH Potfry]

And thus begins Sullivan's careful retreat from his foray into madness. Appel's attempt to dismiss it all as the unfortunate by-product of unfiltered genius is simply laughable.

[Patrick Appel]

I'm not sure that I understand your point or that you understand mine. I wasn't saying that "reality doesn't exist." Instead, I was arguing that a conspiracy theory reaches a tipping point where general rebuttals and de-bunkings no longer have much of an impact. I was describing how someone loses touch with reality. In Andrew's case, because he was met (understandably) with mockery rather than forceful counterarguments, his suspicions took root more so than they would have otherwise. Most of those willing to entertain his theories after a certain point were sympathetic to his viewpoint, to say the least. I know you are not a fan of Sullivan, but he will change his mind eventually when faced with a logical counter-argument. Usually.

But, once a conspiracy theory gets going, it's very difficult to argue against it because those who believe it hold onto small pieces of "evidence." It is like how 9/11 truthers always want to talk about steel beams melting at certain degrees F rather than discussing the big picture. You have to get a degree in engineering to fisk them at that point. Believers in this story were especially prone to missing the forest for the trees because most bloggers didn't even want to dignify the rumors with a response (again, entirely understandably). It was ridiculous on its face, and perhaps responding wouldn't have changed anything, but I remember during the campaign being struck by how few pundits took the time to refute Andrew point by point on these theories.

As I have said multiple times, I found the whole episode distasteful, and I'm not trying to excuse Andrew's actions, just understand them.

[Mrs. Peperium]

Mark L. - heh...

Patrick, you'd be better served if you tried to understand what Andrew wrote about Sarah Palin revealed about him and his followers (read closely) :

The Rebuttal

01 Sep 2008 02:51 pm
A reader points out what is left implicit in the Palins' statement:

"I'm not sure how to say this politely, but if Bristol Palin is more than three and a half months' pregnant, it is physically impossible for her to have given birth on the 18th of April to Trig.

"I know with "about five months" it's difficult to be certain what they mean, which is why most doctors talk in weeks. But basically a pregnancy is calculated as 40 weeks, and is dated from the previous period so for the first two weeks of the 'pregnancy' one is not actually pregnant.
Women tend to take at least six weeks to start ovulating again, and often several months. Say Bristol is very young and made a medically exceptional recovery - the very very earliest she could have become pregnant 'again' would be from mid May, which would put her at three and a half months pregnant."

Also, and for me this is the clincher:

"it's pretty horrible down there for quite a while after giving birth, most doctors will order no sex for at least six weeks, and well let's be honest, most men wouldn't want to go there for at least six weeks. And most women certainly won't be in the mood for just as long. Which means that again she is unlikely to be more than three months pregnant if she gave birth in April."

This seems persuasive to me. But it's based entirely on a vague verbal statement. Why not kill this rumor with Palin's medical records? A 43 year old woman's pregnancy with a Downs Syndrome child would have been intensely monitored, and the records must be a mile long. Just release them, ok? If necessary in a closed room for reporters, just as with McCain. And we can all breathe a sigh of relief and move on.

------------
"It's pretty horrible down there" seemed a PERSUASIVE argument to Andrew Sullivan? If that is true, I understand why Conor came on board The Atlantic - you guys are a bunch of knuckle draggers when it comes to women.

And:

Parading The Baby

03 Sep 2008 10:27 pm

Did I just see Cindy holding Trig? I mean: can we have it one way or the other? Either the family is out of bounds or it is in the spotlight. Brandishing a child with Down Syndrome as a campaign statement is daring the press to ask questions about him.

-----------------

Trig Palin had more of a right to be at the RNC than the rest of us did -combined. His mother was running for Vice President.