Junk Commentaries

This, from Andrew Sullivan, is just so much bullshit:

Ideological purism is on the march - against Democrats like Lieberman who favor an aggressive fight against our enemy and against conservatives resisting the new fundamentalist authoritarianism of the GOP.

Sullivan is doing exactly what he scores others for doing, which is taking the actions of the fringes as the totality of the movement. He relies on an OpEd by David Brooks, that sterling example of the dynamic intellectualism of the right, from NYT (firewalled, ufortunately, so I couldn't read the whole thing). (But then, Sullivan has relied on Charles Krauthammer's arguments in the past, so I suppose this is no real surprise):

Hardcore leftists - like, for instance, most current leaders of GLBT-rights organizations - apply ideological "purity tests" to their members. When I was a committed leftist, I failed one of these purity tests (I didn't think America deserved the 9/11 attacks) and suffered the wrath of my comrades for such heterodox thinking.

Let's just ignore the fact that HRC, the major gay rights organization, has endorsed Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. In fact, HRC periodically endorses candidates that make my hair stand up, and I'm not even that much of a leftist. So do the Stonewall Democrats. The days of Urvashi Vaid as the icon of the gay rights movement are long past.

Be that as it may, it occurs to me that this is promulgating another right-wing lie. All the discussion I've seen about Lieberman on left-wing blogs centers on his Republican positions on issues. Republican positions seem to stem, at this point, from an inability to distinguish between civil and religious law (a reason, perhaps, that Lieberman is also known as "Holy Joe"). The real dissatisfaction is not that Lieberman is heterodox in his thinking, but that he is arrogant enough to think that he is not answerable to the party rank and file for his positions, that he is somehow a "great man" who is above all that (just like his very good friend, George W. Bush). There's a real easy answer to that, which Lieberman seems to be developing on his own: bolt the party. It wouldn't be the first time it had happened, particularly during periods when our major parties are redefining themselves -- as the Republicans become the party of intrusive government, a saber-rattling foreign policy (where they have one at all), an investor-oriented economoy, and uncontrolled government spending, and the Democrats become the party of civil rights, support for workers, fiscal responsibility, and diplomacy as the cornerstone of foreign policy, it's understandable that someone like Lieberman doesn't fit any more. His mistake is that he thinks he can operate independently of the Democratic Party but keep the perks and the support. Sorry, Joe -- don't work that way.

It gets better (or worse, I guess). Brooks, again:

The problem with today's conservatives is that in their desire to present a united front at all costs, they've begun to act just like the leftists they claim to despise. I don't have a solution for this quandary, and I suspect there may not be one. Perhaps the allure of political influence makes true freedom of thought impossible.

While we're at it, let's rewrite history. The problem with the Democrats is that they don't have any ideological purity and never did. The "united front" is a phenomenon of the Christianist right. It always has been, starting with Reagan, who at least had the sense to present the front but not give its proponents any real influence in his administration. Then we come to Gingrich and the Contract on America, followed by the lockstep theocons who are running the GOP.

Let's get the record straight, shall we?

Sullivan should stick to the ivory tower ruminations. Brooks is simply a joke.


Update:

See this post by Jane Hamsher at FDL. He's even starting to sound like Bush. In fact, FDL has a series of posts on Lieberman and his woes. Go to the main page and just scroll down.

I don't see much mention of "ideological purity," though.