Why would a vice presidential candidate seemingly endorse full-on Marxism days before a general election? Does she believe government should enforce equality of outcome for everyone? Seriously?
— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) November 1, 2020
“Equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place.” That’s equality of *outcomes* enforced by the government. They used to call that communism.
— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) November 1, 2020
Sullivan is one of those “productively irritating” people for me — capable of making me applaud at times, and growl in frustration at others. I think he’s intellectually honest, though he’s prone to the typical intellectual’s tendency to cleverly reason himself into absurd conclusions. Just two months ago, he concisely articulated better than anyone else I’ve seen the fundamental case against the Democrats, only to spend the time since then offering some gag-inducing paeans to the party’s nominee. Now he’s shocked, SHOCKED, to find out that the more-leftward members of the party are getting high on their own supply of radical egalitarianism. I don’t begrudge anyone their complex lesser-evil calculations when faced with two unappealing choices, but please, have the decency to not act surprised by what follows.
I don’t know or care whether Harris truly, deep down in whatever nest of vipers and spiders passes for a politician’s shriveled, decaying heart, believes in the message of the video she tweeted, or if she’s only endorsing it cynically. The more interesting question is why such a message would even be appealing to enough people to be worth endorsing, even cynically. Are they stupid or evil? Another unappealing choice which I’m not wise enough to figure out.
November 3, 2020 @ 12:54 pm
That’s my take on Sully too. A lot of “Yes!” and “No!” moments while reading him. I wish he hadn’t moved behind a paywall, but not enough to pay for access.
November 3, 2020 @ 5:25 pm
Yeah, I’m only subscribed to his free newsletter, which I think I get once a week or so.