5 ms·

For those who don't follow US politics and editorial writers, Andrew Sullivan is kind of a big deal to Democrats and the self-identified "left". If he's change

For those who don't follow US politics and editorial writers, Andrew Sullivan is kind of a big deal to Democrats and the self-identified "left". If he's changed his mind on the Obama's fundamental credibility on the NSA domestic spying issue, it could suggest the beginnings of a sea change in establishment political thought.

dnautics 13y ago
he's kind of a big deal because he's a self-described libertarian-leaning small-c conservative that often produces missives in agreement with the Democratic party. Contrast this with the libertarian-leaning small-c conservative Ron Paul, who often worked in conjunction with left-democrats - but generally not the Democrats (such as Kucinich, Barney Frank), and who is thus NOT a big deal to Democrats. To a large extent, the fawning over Sullivan is a sort of a political expediency. Now that the capital D Democrats have seemingly lost Sullivan, I would not be surprised if his big-deal-ness will fade, as he dismissed again as just one of those smarmy libertarians.
- Semiapies 13y ago
  Sullivan is fairly far from anything reasonably described as "libertarian". He's a British conservative and was a huge booster of and apologist for Bush for most of his administration. He's stayed a big deal because he switched to being a booster of and apologist for Obama. He has an embarrassing Great Leader fixation. But yes, if he stops writing paeans to Obama, he'll stop being nearly as much a Big Deal.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    well - by libertarian leaning, I meant "fiscally conservative, socially liberal". But yes, his Great Leader fixation would disqualify him from being libertarian in the philosophical sense (versus the political - as in policy - or Political - as in Party) senses.
    - Semiapies 13y ago
      That's not what "libertarian" means, either. In the "policy" sense, he's been an aggressive opponent of most libertarian stances, aside from when Abu Ghraib and PRISM broke. In the "Political - as in Party" sense, I'm not aware he says much of anything about the Libertarian Party.
smsm42 13y ago
I believe it when I see it. Comparing what happened during Bush era and during Obama era, I have very low hopes to see any substantial non-partisan response (i.e. one that could hurt your own party members in the name of liberty) to government abuses from these quarters.

dnautics 13y ago

he's kind of a big deal because he's a self-described libertarian-leaning small-c conservative that often produces missives in agreement with the Democratic party. Contrast this with the libertarian-leaning small-c conservative Ron Paul, who often worked in conjunction with left-democrats - but generally not the Democrats (such as Kucinich, Barney Frank), and who is thus NOT a big deal to Democrats. To a large extent, the fawning over Sullivan is a sort of a political expediency. Now that the capital D Democrats have seemingly lost Sullivan, I would not be surprised if his big-deal-ness will fade, as he dismissed again as just one of those smarmy libertarians.

Semiapies 13y ago
Sullivan is fairly far from anything reasonably described as "libertarian". He's a British conservative and was a huge booster of and apologist for Bush for most of his administration. He's stayed a big deal because he switched to being a booster of and apologist for Obama. He has an embarrassing Great Leader fixation. But yes, if he stops writing paeans to Obama, he'll stop being nearly as much a Big Deal.
- dnautics 13y ago
  well - by libertarian leaning, I meant "fiscally conservative, socially liberal". But yes, his Great Leader fixation would disqualify him from being libertarian in the philosophical sense (versus the political - as in policy - or Political - as in Party) senses.
  - Semiapies 13y ago
    That's not what "libertarian" means, either. In the "policy" sense, he's been an aggressive opponent of most libertarian stances, aside from when Abu Ghraib and PRISM broke. In the "Political - as in Party" sense, I'm not aware he says much of anything about the Libertarian Party.

smsm42 13y ago

I believe it when I see it. Comparing what happened during Bush era and during Obama era, I have very low hopes to see any substantial non-partisan response (i.e. one that could hurt your own party members in the name of liberty) to government abuses from these quarters.