Sullivan Is Actually Not An Anti-Semite

For all it's depth and artfulness, ultimately, Leon Wieseltier's critique of Andrew Sullivan is myopic. Certainly, all the signs of anti-semitism are there with Sullivan. But that's because he hates, first and foremost, and simply disagrees.

Via Google, the words hater and Andrew Sullivan go hand in hand and have throughout his various political transmutations. He's capable of hating almost anything, or anyone. Right now, Sullivan hates everything from a single uterus, to the Christian faith and Zionism, among other things. Two years from now, he may be hating something else because, to know what Sullivan hates at any particular time, is only to know that which he opposes, not which he truly loathes.

He did once give us a glimpse of it, while perhaps not realizing it at the time.

Netflix: Manhattan Mostly Occupied by Gays and Self-Loathing Alcoholics

Like they're mutually exclusive?

I can't take credit for the thinking as regards Sullivan as a hater. I was put on to it by another. However, I believe it's spot on. Andrew Sullivan is a hater, what he hates is secondary, perhaps, to what Andrew Sullivan hates most. And as with all real haters, the source for that is always to be found inside.

Comments

[Steve White]

Reminds me early in Dirty Harry, where Harry Callahan was described as an "equal-opportunity hater. He hates everybody."

[Ken B]

What you are arguing is that longitudianally he hasn't the consistency of your average anti-semite. But does he do a good imitation of one right now is the question.

[section9]

Sullivan is not without his talents. If you look at his Sunday Times columns, he is quite able to cater to the "bien pensant" readers of the High Tory Conservative Party who never really had much time for Mrs. Thatcher but held their nose and voted for her anyway.

[Moishe Potemkin]

I'm no historian, but I would guess that the damage wrought by non-innate anti-semites (like, say, people who decide that any "friend of my president-who-refused-to-endorse-gay-marriage is my enemy") is probably as bad as the damage wrought by "real" anti-semites.

Andrew's much sillier than Buchanan, but not less damaging.

[John]

Mr. Sullivan has a very inventive mind, he can bring himself to despise anything with a flair . He needs absolutely no evidence or proof but is quite capable of making up his own toxic justification from thin air. He usually chooses items that he know little or nothing about politics, female sexuality or scientific facts and theories. I do not understand why anyone pays attention to his bias, most of the time he makes Kieth Obersmann look sane and rational. Mr. Sullivan needs a padded room and a great deal medication to return to the real world (as if that much medication existed).

[Steve]

"For all it's depth and artfulness, ultimately, Leon Wieseltier's critique of Andrew Sullivan is myopic."

Yeah. It's been obvious for a very long time that Sullivan is a loon. Wieseltier chose to ignore that as long as it was insanity directed at people such as Palin. He then gets wound up when Andy spreads his bile to cover people like Wieseltier.

[Steve]

"I'm no historian, but I would guess that the damage wrought by non-innate anti-semites (like, say, people who decide that any "friend of my president-who-refused-to-endorse-gay-marriage is my enemy") is probably as bad as the damage wrought by "real" anti-semites."

You REALLY ARE no historian. I'm fairly sure that "real" anti-semites such as the Nazis did rather more damage than people like Sullivan.

Here is Wieseliter

"What sets them apart from their more enlightened brethren is the unacceptability of their politics to Sullivan. That is his criterion for dividing the American Jewish community into good Jews and bad Jews–a practice with a sordid history"

So you're a crazy anti-semite even if you say "There are good Jews and bad Jews"? Are we all to be required to say "All Jews are good!" from now on?

[Anon]

Listen, he's just a nut who by some stroke of luck happens to have a pulpit from which to spew his bile. The thing that differentiates Andrew Sullivan from most hysterical nut jobs whose only method of criticism is the unhinged personal attack is that his particular platforms are mainstream and credible, so by inference, because his blog is on The Atlantic it is assumed to be more credible. Unfortuantely, it isn't.

[Daniel]

It seemed to me years ago that Andrew S never was able to disagree respectfully with anyone at all.
That is why I stopped reading him years ago, even when he was more of my persuasion.

[teapartyphil]

Sullivan is jealous of Sarah Palin because SHE got Todd.

[SteveMG]

"So you're a crazy anti-semite even if you say "There are good Jews and bad Jews"? Are we all to be required to say "All Jews are good!" from now on?"

You miss his point entirely. The "goodness" or "badness" of a Jewish person has nothing to do with their Jewishness. It has to do separately from their religion/race.

Substitute "black" for Jew and see how it sounds. A black person is "bad" or "good" not because of their race but because they are either "good" or "bad".

Israel's policies may be "good" or "bad" not because they violate some Jewish tradition but because they violate a human standard. To focus on the Jewishness is strange.

Sullivan's not an anti-semite. I don't doubt that if Krauthammer et al. (the "bad Jews") were Episcopalians that Sullivan would denounce them. But he would conflate the views of "Episcopalian Krauthammer" to that of Episcopalian thought. Sullivan is sloppy and tendentious but he's not a bigot.

[DANEgerus]

I really don't think it's possible for Andrew Sullivan to forgive American men for failing to find him attractive.

So he hates.

[kim]

Sullivan speaks with tri-partite tongue, but I'm not gonna try to explain that to editors of the New Republic.
===================================

[Moishe Potemkin]

"You REALLY ARE no historian. I'm fairly sure that "real" anti-semites such as the Nazis did rather more damage than people like Sullivan."

I was unclear - I meant that people like Sullivan who have come to their anti-semitic pronouncements for other reasons (I don't think I'm alone in noting Sullivan's infinite hissy-fit over Bush's apparent betrayal) are no less dangerous than people who are anti-semitic out of conviction.

Looking at your example: some Nazis were ideological, some succumbed to peer pressure. But I'm not sure the difference in motivation made a difference in their Nazi-ness.

[Freddy Hill]

Sullivan must be doing something right. I read his blog for a few months years ago, and then I stopped, because I felt that reading him was like trying to make sense of a windsock in a hurricane: even when individual readings made some sense, when observed over a longer period of time he flipped around in unpredictable ways. He seemed like a guy whose short term memory was shot, who could not remember today what he said yesterday. He continues to be linked, ridiculed and despised by you guys, but he's still there, maybe because of you guys... Is there some kind of symbiotic relationship going on here?

[Neocon Bonde]

Anti Semite? No. But, Woman Hater? Yes. He seethes with jealousy at powerful intelligent well spoken beautiful women.

[el polacko]

i'm with 'freddy hill'. i gave up reading sullivan some time ago because of his inconsistency (and nastiness). after a while it was apparent that anything that pops into his head is the 'right way' and everybody else is stupid if they aren't on the same page with him.. even if yesterday he 'firmly believed' the opposite.
i do also wonder though why his name keeps popping up on sites like this and others that i do read now that many of my views have evolved to being what might be called 'conservative'. some people seems to have a real jones for keeping up with sullivan's rants..i don't know why.

[Mike G]

"So you're a crazy anti-semite even if you say "There are good Jews and bad Jews"? Are we all to be required to say "All Jews are good!" from now on?"

I'm curious to know the non-prejudiced context in which one would ever have a conversation about "good X and bad X."

[Steve]

"I'm curious to know the non-prejudiced context in which one would ever have a conversation about "good X and bad X.""

I don't know. I suppose in the same context in which phrases such as "righteous gentiles" might come up?

It's hardly news the white Democrats have their "good blacks" and "bad blacks". Clarence Thomas is a "bad black" in their eyes. And he's a "good black" in Republican eyes.

A lot of the "bad Jews" stuff comes from ... other Jews! Read Eric Foner on the topic of the neocons sometime. You live a very blinkered existence if you've never heard of such things before. And its not "prejuduced" because its not criticism of a group of people based on immutable characteristics. "Prejudice" is "I hate all the Jews as Jews" Non-prejudice is "I hate Jews who do X".

Prejudice is "I hate Germans". Non-prejudice is "I hate Nazis". I trust you see the distinction.

[New Class Traitor]

If I were Andrew Sullivan and had to look at myself in the mirror I'd puke, too. ( I'm not talking of his physical looks.)

No wonder he hates everybody.

If this PolyQuisling didn't have a bully pulpit at a major publication we wouldn't even waste our breath on him. In fact, let's just ignore him into oblivion.

[SteveMG]

"A lot of the "bad Jews" stuff comes from ... other Jews!"

Surely you must see the difference between members of a group condemning each other for "right" or "wrong" behavior and outsiders using that same standard? Especially when it comes to historically oppressed groups like Jews or black Americans?

Wieseltier's point remains: Charles Krauthammer (the "neocons") is a "good" or "bad" person regardless of his Jewishness. That fact that he has, in Sullivan's eyes, "bad" views doesn't mean that he represents the "bad Jews". Sullivan is conflating Krauthammer's Jewishness with his public policy views and claiming that he represents a "wing" of Jewish thought.

Again: Krauthammer doesn't believe what he does re Iran or Islamic terrorism because he is Jewish. Attack his ideas but don't include his Jewishness in the attacks.

[Steve]

>"Surely you must see the difference between members of a group condemning each other for "right" or "wrong" behavior and outsiders using that same standard?"

The examples I gave you were not of members of a group condemning each other for "right" or "wrong" behavior. (See the Germans/Nazis example) And no, provided the "same standard" is used there is no difference. You sound like you want to excuse hypocrisy.

>"Sullivan is conflating Krauthammer's Jewishness with his public policy views and claiming that he represents a "wing" of Jewish thought."

Krauthammer DOES represent a wing of Jewish thought. Neoconservatism is a wing of Jewish thought.

>"Krauthammer doesn't believe what he does re Iran or Islamic terrorism because he is Jewish."

What do you base that claim on?

[SteveMG]

'Krauthammer DOES represent a wing of Jewish thought. Neoconservatism is a wing of Jewish thought.'

That's insane. Neoconservatism is a political ideology and not a racial or religious one. You do know that there are neoconservatives who aren't Jewish? Where is Maimonides in the views of neoconservatives?

Krauthammer represents the view of one Charles Krauthammer. You're making the same error that Wieseltier criticizes, i.e., a thought from a Jew or Jews means they are 'Jewish thoughts.'

'What do you base that claim on?'

All of his other foreign policy views and writings over the past two decades. I'm sure you can understand that one doesn't have to be Jewish to support the state of Israel or be against radical Islamic terror?

[SteveMG]

The intellectual origins of neoconservatism in the early seventies (Irving Kristol et al.) had almost nothing to do with concerns about the state of Israel of Middle East policy. It was chiefly a reaction to the perceived cultural and political excesses of the liberal/left, e.g., the welfare state, and to what was viewed as a growing threat from an expansionist Soviet Union.

None of that - none - has anything to do with Jewish thoughts.

[Joe]

Sullivan gets funny feelings when he sees or hears Sarah Palin.

And it gets him confused and angry. As Garth said, like climbing the rope at gym or seeing Bugs Bunny put on a dress and act like a girl bunny.

[Joe]

No one likes Andrew Sullivan. If Andrew Sullivan was an ice cream flavor he would be pralines and dick.

[Moishe Potemkin]

I did think it was fascinating that part of Sullivan's self-justification for his persistent Israel-bashing is Obama's low popularity there.

[kevin]

"Sullivan's not an anti-semite. I don't doubt that if Krauthammer et al. (the "bad Jews") were Episcopalians that Sullivan would denounce them. But he would conflate the views of "Episcopalian Krauthammer" to that of Episcopalian thought."

Sullivan makes distinctions between types of Christians and their thoughts. He uses the term Christianist to refer to a brand of Christian political thinking that he finds odious.