Over the last few years, I have become a regular reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog. Sullivan calls himself a conservative. He supported Bush in 2000, he was a rabid supporter of the Iraq War, and he has that knee-jerk, completely irrational, totally insane over-reaction anytime someone mentions either Hillary Clinton or Michael Moore. He simply cannot contain his bizarre hatred for both of them.But over the last few years, Sullivan has been changing his tune (Personally, I never understood how a gay man in America could be a Republican, but I guess that was part of what made him stand out). Anyway, since '04, Sullivan has been on the correct side of issues like the Iraq War, US use of torture, and the blatantly illegal activities of the Cheney Administration. However, as right as he is on those issues, Sullivan shows he is a true wingnut when it comes to health care.
In a posting today entitled Shticko, Sullivan attempts to eviscerate the alternatives to the current for-profit health care system suggested by Michael Moore in his new film (which neither Sullivan nor I have seen). However, Sullivan shows that he is not someone who has "seen the light" on this issue as he makes the following enlightened comment, "And yes, I see no problem with the wealthy having access to better care than the less wealthy."
There it is, my friends. The conservative solution to our health care crisis -- do nothing and allow the wealthy to continue to have greater access. Not sure how someone can show such concern for the rights of Al Queda detainees, but does not care one iota about poor Americans suffering without access to a doctor. Interesting.
3 comments:
Sullivan drives me nuts. Like you say, it's really hard to respect a gay man who sides with the GOP. And his reversal on Iraq comes conveniently after things have gone to shit...just like so many of us on the Left predicted it would.
J.C. Watts' dad supposedly said re. his son's conservative politics, "A black man voting Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders." I can see how that might apply to Sullivan as well... gay people being conservatives just doesn't seem to match up in my mind somehow, but I guess if you're rich enough and want to preserve your wealth, you'll support the party that favors that. I don't see why someone's politics can't be different from their sexual orientation, although with the GOP being basically controlled by religious nuts, that party just doesn't seem very gay-friendly... I don't pay enough attention to Sulllivan to have any real opinions about him, I just find him to be something of an anomaly.
According to people with conservative views like his, access to health care is something that apparently has to be earned. He helps perpetuate our current national health care policy: "Don't get sick".
I could actually understand someone being a gay conservative, just not a gay Republican. Conservatism used to be about allowing for personal freedom and allowing people to live as they choose. The Republican brand of conservatism is about persecuting those that do not subscribe to their narrowly construed religious interpretations.
Post a Comment