I know there’s something vaguely wrong about that title, but James Lilek’s fisking of Andrew Sullivan shows why he’s a master of the form. It’s like watching an elderly Shaolin monk beat down a young upstart with one hand.
You really should read the whole thing, and as tempting as it would be to quote the end, you’ll have to read it yourself…
James Lileks is a good writer. That has long been obvious, and is acknowledged my many.
One thing that has continually puzzled me, however, is another, similar assessment frequently spotted around the blogosphere. It’s usually along the lines of: “Andrew Sullivan sure is a wonderful writer, but I disagree with him about blah-blah…”
Could someone please elaborate on the reasons Sullivan is considered to be a “good writer”? Nothing in his prose or style has ever compelled me to think, Wow, what fantastic writing!” Yet this notion of Sullivan-as-master-stylist seems to a kind of conventional wisdom.
His stuff after 9/11 was pretty good, but he’s been going downhill both in logic and prose for some time…
Hmm, I think you and Lileks are considerably more logic-deficient. I’m suprised that after completing a four-year degree in political science, you can still come off as a political ignoramous at times (especially now).
Though I must say that Lileks’ final passage was quite astute, and if I had the choice, I’d pick Blair over Bush or Kerry any day of the week and Sunday.
Oh, and in case you haven’t read it, here’s Sullivan’s brief response to Lilek’s fisking:
“In the interests of debate, here’s James Lileks’ dissection of my endorsement. I think it comes down to: he doesn’t trust Kerry in any way. If that’s your opinion, then I think you have to vote Bush. But it isn’t mine. One other thing: there is nothing in his piece about Bush’s record. Reading James is always a pleasure. But he could have written this piece a year ago without changing a jot. Has he learned anything from what has happened in Iraq? Or is he just not telling?”
Yes- it’s amusing to notice how the Republican strategy has turned to being more anti-Kerry than pro-Bush as many conservatives have realized that the Bush administration is quickly turning into a disaster. Neither Bush or Kerry can run on their records- a very sad state of affairs, indeed. It’s turned into the hatred of one side against the other, and I fear for a house that has become this divided…
Nicholas: I disagree with your assessment that conservatives “realize” the Bush administration is “turning into a disaster.” This is of course a matter of individual judgment, based on the way each of us processes facts we observe. So I can say only that I do not think this is the impetus behind any Republican strategy.
For one thing, the anti-Kerry slant has been a core plank in the Bush tactical approach for months. It’s nothing new. Additionally, the unusually heated, personal nature of this campaign has bred an attack mode on both sides. And at the risk of sounding like a 5-year-old, HE STARTED IT. Kerry, that is. Naaa-naa-naa-naa-naaaa.
Right And Wrong
Whoops, bad link. God, I’m bad at HTML.
Maybe that’ll work.
One quick thought on Andrew Sullivan, since he’s the actual topic of this post: Anybody else notice that nearly every time he stages one of his big pledge weeks — incessantly bugging readers to toss him some cash — he’ll announce at week’s end that he’s “taking a break from blogging”?
I’m all for his cash solicitations — go, capitalism! — but it seems an odd PR move to plan one’s vacations in the immediate stretch following one’s big money grab.
I don’t think Bush’s term has been a disaster. I think we’ve had disasters during Bush’s term, but we’re by far in a stronger position than we would have been had Gore been elected (perish the thought!)
In the last four years we have had the biggest terrorist attack in world history that drained over a trillion dollars from the economy. We had a biological attack against the country. We had an accounting scandal that ended with several companies going completely under including the seventh-largest corporation in the nation. We had a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq that have ended with quick victories and the liberation of 50 million people. Saddam Hussein has been captured and is awaiting trial. Osama bin Laden is on the run and may soon be captured (assuming he’s even alive). Two-thirds of the leadership of al-Qaeda are on the run or dead. There has been no major terrorist strikes against the US (something I would not have thought possible three years ago), and plenty of attempts have been foiled.
The reconstruction of Iraq has been marked with some major mistakes but slow and steady progress in key areas. Moqtada al-Sadr has gone from a major threat to just another thug. Iraq isn’t likely to blow up into civil war. Two-thirds of the country is quiet and prosperous. Cities like Mosul and Basra see only a fraction of the violence of the Sunni Triangle and places like Iraqi Kurdistan are quite well off. The terrorists in Fallujah are losing their grip and the Marines have them surrounded and under seige. The Iraqis are taking an increasing amount of responsibility for their own security and despite all the attacks and all the bombings thousands of young Iraqis are waiting in line right as I type this in order to sign up for the police and military and protect their country from foreign terrorists.
The unemployment rate is at a low 5.4%, which is half of what the EU’s average rate of unemployment is. Economic growth is over 3.4%, double that of most EU countries. Home ownership is at an all-time high. The household survey of unemployment shows far more job gains and is probably a better measure of hiring in a service/technology economy.
All the things I think are Bush’s mistakes – flinching in Fallujah the first time, the steel tariffs, McCain-Feingold, the farm bill, the Medicare Bill are all things that Kerry would do more of. For me to vote for Bush based on the mistakes he’s made would be to cut off my nose to spite my face.
President Bush can stand on his record. President Bush understands the nature of the terrorist threat we face, while Senator Kerry clearly does not. The Bush Doctrine is exactly the right strategic doctrine to deal with the threat of international terrorism. The President’s rhetoric on expanding liberty is a reaffirmation of the rhetoric this country was founded upon.
I trust the President, and when I go to the polls, I won’t be voting against Kerry as I will be voting for a continuance of Bush’s policies, warts and all.