Saturday
I have read Andrew Sullivan's blog pretty much from the moment he started it. I have a natural sympathy for anyone who defies conventional stereotypes, and a man who is Catholic, gay and a small-government Reaganite conservative, a fan of Madonna and Michael Oakeshott certainly breaks more sterotypes than most. He has been magnificent in taking a stand on the issue of torture, for example. But even our heroes - and Sullivan is one in my eyes - have their feet of clay or views that I regard as stand-out dumb. And on the issue of cars, Sullivan (who does not drive) reverts to nannystatism in all its ugly glory. He endorses an article by Jonathan Rauch arguing that President Bush should press for an international pact to phase out the use of gasoline in cars over the next 30 years. Oh great. So do we humble, much-harassed motorists get a say in this? Don't give me a line about how this would be 'democratically' decided. Oh yeah. Why not leave it to the market, already driving new alternatives to petroleum-based engines? If the real price of oil continues to be high, as it is at the moment, then we will get more hybrids, more hydrogen-powered cars, more innovations and new transport sources, without the need for some Grand International Treaty or 30-year deadline. If Bush did make such a pronouncement, how seriously would anyone take it? Would it not be regarded as the sort of 'eye-catching initiative' one has come to associate with our own Tony Blair.
A far better idea, in fact, would be to rely on innovation contests such as the X-Prize to encourage new technologies rather than go for a big Treaty with a deadline. Now that strikes me as the sort of idea a small-government advocate like Sullivan should be pushing.
I can understand the wish to reduce use of oil from the Middle East and curb C02 emissions. But in my gut I feel that Sullivan and others like him just don't like cars very much and are mystified by most American' love of a set of wheels (clue, Andrew - America is seriously BIG). Sullivan has lived in the States now for more than two decades, but I fear that in some way, the fella never really left this little damp island known as Britain.
Don't worry Jonathan, Sullivan will figure out sooner or later that treaties with multilateral targets don't work. There's no penalty for defection, no gain in cooperation, and nobody can tell who loses what, so they are a that most unexciting game. Not so much a prisoner's dilemma as a governor's excuse-me.
Posted by guy herbert at July 8, 2006 04:05 PM
Sullivan is no different than anyone else who believes in the nanny state. Because living without a car makes sense for Sullivan and his lifestyle, he thinks it makes sense for everyone else. For his next trick, he'll be proposing legislation to outlaw K-Y and subsidize Astroglide.
Posted by Charlie at July 8, 2006 06:04 PM
Someone send him the conversation between Caesar, Germanicus, and Brittanus....
Posted by Mike Lorrey at July 8, 2006 06:15 PM
Camille Paglia describes this type of gay activist as 'flim-flannery'. Odd thing is she defended Sullivan when he was sane.
Like all Collectivists, gay activists are thier own worst enemy
Posted by syn at July 8, 2006 06:16 PM
I never could understand the hero worship for Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Dish must surely be the most overrated blog on the internet (and his Sunday Times column is no better). The essential truth about Sullivan is that he's flakey - you think he's on the side of right on moment then find he's done a complete 180 turn the next. His support, such as it was, for the Bush administration which was then very swiftly withdrawn when Bush refused to institute gay marriage is a good example of this.
Posted by David H at July 8, 2006 08:59 PM
I stopped reading Sullivan about 3 years ago. He had a money raising drive in July. When he reached his goal took a month long August vacation. He's a queer fellow.
Posted by jrdroll at July 9, 2006 12:04 AM
Jonathan, might not government contests along the the lines of the X-Prize be one of the means by which the 30 year target is met? The treaty Sullivan is talking about does not specify a means to its end.
Posted by Kit at July 9, 2006 09:24 AM
Yes, judging from the commercials starting to hit the small screen (when I'm not Tivoing past them), lower mpg ratings are the new black.
Unfortunately though, I suspect it'll take a while before the Americans realise that 19mpg instead of 12mpg for that monster SUV is still pretty bad before they switch to saner form factors.
Rich
Posted by Richard Thomas at July 9, 2006 03:59 PM
Yeah, it's easy to call for an end to cars when you live in New York City.
I'd like to see Sullivan get around NYC without taxis, though. That would be interesting.
My biggest problem with Sullivan, though, is that he's an unserious man in a serious profession. His 180-degree philosophy turns (as noted above) would be regarded as feckless, coming from anyone else.
But he gets the "gay pass" -- I mean, like, dude, aren't gays like that?
I stopped reading him two years ago.
Andrew Stuttaford at National Review is a better choice.
Posted by Kim du Toit at July 9, 2006 04:43 PM
...which has the best mass transit system in the nation, thanks to a googleplex in federal spending.
Posted by Bruce at July 10, 2006 05:41 PM
