Andrew Sullivan is a rum character. Columnists are not supposed to maintain an iron consistency in their views and I do not hold it against Sullivan that he has switched from being a rather embarrassingly full-on cheerleader for George W. Bush, for example, to an equally full-on despiser of said. I actually believe Sullivan when he claims that his anger at some of Bush’s policies is not primarily motivated by Bush’s stance on gay marriage, but more by Bush’s very un-conservative heavy public spending, abuse of certain powers, and above all, the bungling in Iraq. But Sullivan likes to act as a sort of arbiter of what a true “conservative” is, but I wonder about his credentials on this score. This post leaves a nasty taste, even though Sullivan does his utmost, quite rightly, to divorce himself from condoning acts of violence:
Enviro-activists go all terrorist on us. The Washington Post story is here. I have to say that while I completely abhor the violence, I do not abhor the sentiment. Parking a 7-foot high Hummer in your neighborhood is about as irritating as watching one careen down the small streets of Provincetown. We have to create a social stigma toward people totally contemptuous of the environment.
“We have to create a social stigma”. That is really nice, Andrew. Several decades ago, certain people thought that it was right to “create a social stigma”, involving lots of nasty expressions and social ostracism, against people who wanted to have sex with people of their own gender. People once thought about sexual morality in much the same way that some people think about those who delight in driving gas guzzling cars. I do not know: maybe driving a large car is morally worse than two men bonking one another, but many people might take a different view. Sullivan is a man who has benefited from the liberties afforded to him by the United States, and has written eloquently about the plight of gay people and their struggle to be accepted as normal. It is particularly disappointing to see him joining what amounts to the moral bullying tactics of the Greens and their hysterical invocations of global doom.
Perhaps Dubya has unhinged the man. I wish Sullivan would cheer up: he used to be a great writer. Perhaps he should come back home to Britain for a few years and rediscover his English sense of humour.
But what else could his attempts at being violent possibly be? His very definition of violence is based on whatever he has perceived as violence done to him.
“We have to create a social stigma”.
Yea, by vandalizing the poor hummer. Maybe even feather and tar it…
Liberalism means accepting even what you dislike, anyway – refraining from vandalizing those things and people.
Andrew Sullivan is a sentimental, unbalanced nut.
Sullivan has always hit me as a narcissistic neo-puritan. These views don’t surprise me. Andy decides who is a real conservative (and dare I say, liberal, libertarian etc). Andy decides what the proper manners in his precious P-Town (including weather parking a Hummer is the equivalent of reckless driving).
Andy is the maker of manners. And the town prude.
Johnathan, I have to disagree with your take on Sullivans post.
He ends it with:
What he is advocating is actually very libertarian. Do not engage in violence, respect property, but let your views be known. If enough people have the same dislike of certain activities, it will rise to the level of opprobrium.
The person so ‘opprobed’, (word?), can choose to ignore it as have social and political iconoclasts in all ages, choose to confront them, argue with them, reason with them, change their minds, choose to move on to a local where their behavior is accepted or is the norm, or choose to submit to it and change their behavior to comply.
No force, no government, etc.
I have disagreements with Sullivan as well, but I think you are going too far, too harshly, with this one.
Yes, and one is an example of an activity which harms no-one other than the consenting participants, and the other is not. See if you can work out the difference (although the numerous “the environment can sustain whatever beating we mete out” skeptics here will no doubt disagree).
As tomWright say, the solution proposed is also very libertarian – individual acting to express their distaste, rather than a statist intervention.
Actually I agree with Tom Wright. Sullivan is wrong but as long as he is not calling for laws to back his absurd prejudices, he is just a common-or-garden-variety dickhead rather than ‘the enemy’.
That said, I really am planning to get some ‘I do not give a damn about my carbon footprint’ tee-shirts made up. Two can play at ‘culture wars’, Sully.
Perry,
Wrong. You do care about your carbon footprint. You wish to maximize it. Not long ago you were quite keen on the idea of buying a MiG-21. Something which seems an excellent way to maximize carbon emissions in a way that a Dodge Viper or Range Rover just don’t manage, lacking a reheated turbojet and stuff.
Am I being Childish Mr Bateman? Possibly, but I am only reacting to the ludicrously shrill ravings of the green puritans. I think JP was right in his connection with sexual morality because the greens remind me precisely of “everytime you have a wank God kills a kitten” Christians.
Many people are big on liberty, when they would keenly feel it’s absence personally, as Andrew Sullivan would if he lived in, say, Saudi Arabia for instance.
But when it comes to other people having the liberty to do something they disapprove of? Well then suddenly they are far less keen on it…
They are certainly not libertarians and probably not really advocates of free speech either.
Somehow I don’t think that Sully would appreciate other people, exercising their irrational opinions about his obviously irresponsible, nihilistic and athetistic lifestyle.
I do not think that any physical action is required. I just require a broad popular agreement to inform Mr. Sullivan about Dante, Levitivus, Juvenal, Catullus, various patristic authors, Luther, Persius, Shakespeare, 2nd Galatians or Colossians (?), and Petronius a few times a day. Just give him a good yell.
No need to touch or harm him. Just follow him around and remind him of the hell that belongs to the fornicarii according to St. Jerome. You are not stalking him. All he has to do, is slip into a different car and the problem goes away. He is the one making things difficult, isnt he? One car may not matter in the larger scheme of things, but I already feel better…
Patrick, a few years ago, when the AIDS pandemic was at its height, before drugs began to contain, if not solve, the issue, people would have disagreed with your idea that gay sex created no “negative externalities” in the same way that pumping out Co2 allegedly creates a problem in terms of global warming.
Of course, I think that gay sex creates no negative externalities that would justify state coercion, and I take the same view on people driving large cars.
Tom, maybe I was a bit harsh but then remember that Sully is usually the first to attack people who use stigma as a weapon of influencing human behaviour.
I don’t know about you, Perry, but carbon footprint or not, I am worried about the environment. I do wonder though, what would people like Sullivan and the rest of them think about Hammer (and the rest of the behemoths) owners if Detroit suddenly found a way to reduce these vehicles’ emissions to the level of the Bug. Somehow I get the feeling that they would still find reasons to object, like that they take too much parking space, or obstruct the view on the road, or something.
“they would still find reasons to object…”
Of course. People always find ways to rationalize their private phobias.
Sullivan doesn’t drive, so he hates cars. If he did, if he were a fan of fast cars, his opinion would be different.
We all have our biases, but Sullivan is totally incapable of recognizing his, and trying to supersede them and speak with any semblance of impartiality and reason. He is totally driven by his personal phobias.
Alisa,
The real objection is that a vehicle which ostentatiously displays the wealth of the owner is not allowed.
Why do you think a multi-millionaire like Brad Pitt drives a Toyota Pious? Because he’s being cute to the environment? Or because it is the new orthodoxy? And no bugger will convince me that Pitt, Gore or any of the self-righteous rich have a smaller carbon footprint (for what the fuck that is worth) than Nick M in his mid-terrace in Manchester.
Madonna (I used to respect her – she was an honest “material girl”) played the Goreacle’s LiveEarth gig. It is estimated she has 100x the carbon dioxide release of the average UK citizen. Ya know 9 homes, fleet of vehicles, private jet…
And herein lies the problem. Pitt and Madonna et al are hardly unattractive individuals. Pitt is almost as good-looking as I am and Madonna – well, I would, in a minute (the same applies to almost any woman in her mid 40s who can put a leg behind their head). I have to continually reality-check our “stars” because I have a tendancy to fall for their natural charisma and not see that they believe stuff which would condemn the Untermenschen like me to an Orwellian prole nightmare.
It’s a Godawful dilemma. One of my absolute favourite movies is Thelma & Louise. I just have to edit out Ms Sarandon’s moonbattery. Ditto for Mr Sarandon in Shawshank.
I don’t like Jimmy Stewart’s acting. My wife thinks he was great. I can’t stick him. But I respect the man because he flew bombers for the USAAF when he was offered an easy berth. As did another actor I can’t stick as an actor Clarke Gable. I’m pretty lukewarm on David Niven’s films though I loved his autobiography.
In fact, basically the only “celeb” who I admire both professionally and personally is Clint Eastwood. The coolest man who ever drew breath. Oh, and Debbie Harry, obviously.
We’ve got to make 4x4s uncool. That’s all he means. How we do it, who knows? Maybe they’ll go out of fashion like most things do.
When hooligans smash up a car you have to condemn the act of vandalism without any “but”s.
I don’t know how you can watch anything with her in it. Awful witch.
Then I hope you were at the Apollo on Wednesday night. If not you missed a treat.
“We have to create a social stigma “. That is a truly terrifying statement.
It is unclear to me who he means by “we”, and also why it is so imperative that it is done.
For a single person, or group of people, to intentionally engineer the cultural norms of a society towards a predetermined state is very difficult to do without coercion, misrepresentation or restriction of information.
If he means “I’m going to keep exercising my freedom of speech to present well reasoned, logical arguments in favour of my position in the belief that others will be convinced by my arguments and come to share my view,” then good luck to him.
But I suspect that’s not what he means.
But Sullivan likes to act as a sort of arbiter of what a true “conservative” is, but I wonder about his credentials on this score.
I don’t think Sullivan is aware that he’s only politically ‘conservative’ relative to the (stereo)typical homosexual. With regards to the US electorate, he’s basically moderate with a few hot buttons- which is pretty typical.
I wonder if the guy’s neighbors get that. I’m assuming that a neighbor did it so the following runs on that:
If the mystery batsman’s going to smash a high value item like a Hummer, then what is this newly enabled and likely chronically unhinged SOB going to do when he sees a neighbor doing something else he doesn’t like?
Will he move to generic SUVs? The wrong candidate’s sign on the lawn? Someone not sorting their garbage? White after labor day?
Kathleen Turner and John Waters call your office!
Excellent post; couldn’t agree more about Sullivan’s apparent double-standards.
Totally agree, I used to love Andrew Sullivan, even contributed when he first set up his blog. Now I rarely read him, how one person can be so totally contradictory in his writings and so blind to his own prejudices. As I said I loved his blog at the start then he went on holiday and I was so looking forward to him coming back. When he did it was as if a changeling had taken his place! I was so disappointed, love to know what happened to make him change his views completely.
Andrew’s a man of many contradictions. But I’ll still read his postings occasionally.
That’s an easy one.
Bush said he was in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
I don’t suppose anyone is willing to consider that the “Hummer way of life” may essentially be gluttony in 4 wheel drive (unless you’re in Iraq and NEED a Hummer). No question that the Greens sometimes overdo it (they’re certainly not the only ones). The advocates of conspicuous consumption of all types (not limited to the internal combustion engine), astoundingly “seem” to be indifferent to the concern that overdoing it in terms of excessive use of resources, etc., may actually have an adverse effect on the globe. It is hard to believe it, perhaps, when we see the fabulous pix of earth from space, but why does it have to be seen as anti-American and “moon-battish” to raise the concern about responsible stewardship of creation? Or does “the pursuit of happiness” give each of us carte blanche to be as selfish as we can manage and everyone else be damned?
Nick: The real objection is that a vehicle which ostentatiously displays the wealth of the owner is not allowed. Bingo!
I am so with you on the whole actors’ dilemma, and clint Eastwood too. I think there are a few more perfectly sane ones (I think I recall a list of them linked to on this blog), only they are not as high profile as Clint. James Woods (a mathematician too!) and Robert Duvall are on it, I think.
I think he wants SUVs to be considered “crimes against nature”.
Mark In Irvine, the problem is that many people frankly believe that a lot of Greenery is basically Comstock-style puritanism dressed in new garb, and have no desire to be nagged; secondly, they doubt the truth of a lot of what the Greens say. I can understand why people feel that driving enormous Hummers is like gluttony and it is quite right that if people want, they should take the piss out of people who drive these monsters. But I repeat: it is a bit odd for someone like Sullivan to make the argument for stigmas, given his own predilictions.
In any event, if we really do need to cut carbon emmissions, then having crude oil trend towards $100 per barrel is more likely to do the trick than attacking drivers of cars that are deemed “too big” (what is the definition here, by the way? One litre engine, two litres, three?). I noticed that firms that make things like Hummers have not done very well lately. Hard capitalism will do the trick.
“We have to create a social stigma”
This is why “liberal” is a misnomer these days. A liberal mentality is tolerant, even when disapproving.
What is it about some alleged Libertarians and the word ‘sentimental’?
We really, really, really are not robots.
We have emotions, and those emotions result from choices, emotions that make life mean something more than a theory.
Sentimental?
It is the cry of the repressor when ‘judging’ somebody who is normal but doesn’t know it.
About Sullivan acting as the “true conservative” while disliking the Hummerites, it does fall somewhat into the Old Right playbook, of modesty (instead of outright aceticism I attribute to the Puritanical Left) and unpretiousness, as well as having some regard for the environment. I’m sure that there are some folk of the rather conservative stripe, generally older, 60+, who have some sentiments toward the environment and who think some people are just too “flashy”.
Personally I have much alike with the Old Right now touted around the internet, but I certainly would cross the line on such attitudes regarding the environment in general, but do think that many of the folk who drive rolling Status Symbols need to get a life. They’re welcome to it, if they can afford it, and I wouldn’t use force against them. I guess my issue is that there are so many people who drive cars and build houses out of their real income level, and they aren’t saving a dime. It’s really more a resentment that so many folk don’t seem to be building any real equity for themselves and are living too high on the hog. It seems to be squarely conservative to wish that people struck a better balance between consumption and saving, but with so many tanks patrolling the highways, with drivers flashing to everyone how prosperous they are, I can’t help but believe a lot of these SOB’s are in over their heads. It rubs the conservative in me the wrong way. The libertarian in me strives to be fully disinterested, but I know that the liberal in ‘them’ is going to find a way to define us as all in one basket when the shit hits the fan. “It was that evil credit pusher that put in one of those Hummers” or “gave me a mortgage for that 5-1/2 bathroom, 5 bedroom house that I could only afford the interest on, so I’m not to blame”.
I guess the difference between a conservative leaning person and a liberal regarding gas guzzlers is the latter swoons over the environmental impact, and being somewhat anti-fat cat, while the former sees so many of these on the road that it has to be a sign of overheated consumption at the expense of equity, and a time will come when times are more harsh and those that were the flashiest will be the first to line up for that which someone else saved, either through direct assessment or easy bankruptcy policies. Not putting words in Sullivan’s mouth, just pointing out how one ‘conservative’ views huge autos.
Do any of you ever listen to the long list of complaints about the huge trucks and the behaviors of at least some of their owners? I will tell you about some of the things I’ve seen in the Washington, DC area.
First, if any of you think I am a nanny state puritan, just Google “Hash House Harriers.” Dale Amon can confirm I am reasonably active in that group. He might also confirm I am hardly a puritan.
So somebody trashed a Hummer in DC? So what? In 2004 a man driving a giant pickup truck totalled my Camaro by hitting it from the rear. His comment? “I wasn’t following too closely. The traffic stopped too fast.” In other words, he bought and used a vehicle he didn’t know how to drive. He drove off with slight damage. This sort of thing has happened to too many of my friends. Oh, I’m supposed to buy a big truck so I can drive off too? Sorry, I hate driving big trucks. They are boring and difficult to control. Just how different is the behavior of the man who hit me from the people who trashed that guy’s Hummer? It could be the Hummer owner was a real bozo who made enemies in his neighborhood in multiple ways.
Some lesser incidents might further illuminate the problem. Awhile back I was the last car in line. My Camaro (the second one I bought) was much faster than the bloody Chevrolet Avalanche (an ugly piece of garbage that’s named after a disaster) that pulled up on my left fender and turned on his blinker indicating he wanted to cut in front of me. I managed to close the gap to less space than I like and prevented him from doing so. He missed the turn off. One for the good guys — me and people like me.
Then there was the bozo in a truck who did cut off a Camaro Z28 — a bloody race car no less — in front of me nearly causing a multiple car pile up. Fortunately the Z28 driver and I were good enough to avoid an accident.
Over a year ago I was driving in Virginia when traffic slowed to a crawl because of an accident way up the road. A large number of polite people merged into the one good lane to get by the obstacle in the right lane. Two fat bitches in a Mercedes SUV started howling down the blocked lane with their turn blinker light on demanding to get into the lane of polite people. Since traffic was backed up quite a ways (a half mile or more) I saw them well enough in advance to be able to get in their way and stop them. People cheered my actions. Some of them were in trucks.
I — and lots of other drivers in the DC area — could go on for days with stories like this. Some of us think the giant truck is the choice of antisocial bullies. No, not everyone who drives one is a bully. Some people buy them in self defense. Some for other reasons. But too many owners do seem to be bullies.
When I see truck owners publicly chastising these kinds of behaviors, I will stop complaining about huge trucks.