Author: Andrew Sullivan

“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” Justice Brandeis, New State Ice Co. vs Liebmann, 1932. Justice Brandeis, welcome to the new Republicanism. My latest piece on the importance of federalism today can be read here.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Beinart is almost completely right, and I do think part of the problem this election year was John Kerry personally, which is another way of saying that as de facto leader of the Democratic Party he was unwilling to use the words “Iraq” and “democracy” or “Arab” and “democracy” in the same sentence, and tell the peacenik wing of the party to sit down and shut up. But I’m just plain sick and tired of trying to convince other liberals that America is now engaged in a multi-decade struggle against Islamo-fascism, and that this struggle will be the central organizing principle in American politics for years to come. Sadly, the central post-election narrative that “values” rather national security cost Democrats this election, combined with ridiculous and childish allegations of massive voter fraud in Ohio, has allowed Democrats the luxury of avoiding and denying what ails them.

But whatever.

If liberals are determined to play the role of Taft Republicans during the 1930s and 1940s, denying the threat posed by European fascism and Japanese nationalism, obsessing about freedoms lost at home during wartime, and as such remaining in the political wilderness for most of the next three decades, who am I to stop them? In fact as far as I can tell Democrats would *rather* watch the New Deal and Great Society pissed down the drain, and a hard right Supreme Court roll back the 1960s, than stepping up to the plate and committing themselves to the realization of liberty and democracy in the Muslim world. The peaceniks were allowed to destroy the party once before in the late 60s and early 70s. Will they be allowed to do it again? So far it looks like the answer is yes.” More feedback on the Letters Page.

I’m increasingly grateful to David Brooks for raising the issue of John Stott’s legacy and thought. A must-read is an email I just got from a former assistant of Stott’s. The full email is on the Letters Page. Here’s an extract:

Stott is to global evangelicalism what Cardical Ratzinger is to Opus Dei. His “Issues Facing Christians Today” is the Evangelical catechism. While his positions are relatively nuanced, moderate, and thoughtfully argued in the most exquisite English, at the end of the day, they support the fundamental elements of Evangelicalism used by less elegant ministers to justify division, bigotry, and scapegoating. The absolute uniqueness of Christ’s salvific efficacy, the substitutionary nature of the atonement, the complete and untarnished inspiration of the entire Bible, a quasi-literalist hermeneutic, traditional sexual ethics…John Stott has put his imprimatur on all of these, and his followers have followed suit (among whom are many, if not all, of the key figures in global Anglicanism who have recently used homosexuality as *the* issue on which the hinges the future unity of the church – the Bishop of Sydney and his brother, Michael Nazir-Ali, etc.)

I too find the simple assertion of the literal truth of everything in the entire Bible to be, simply, impossible to understand, let alone believe. The myriad contradictions, myths, metaphors, and stories from ancient times can be understood in many, many ways. But the idea that they are all literally true, or that sexual ethics is the non-negotiable bedrock of Christianity, is impossible to take seriously for very long.

THE VOICE OF THE DEMOCRATS: Here’s a response to Peter Beinart’s bracing essay:

Only one problem with Beinart’s thesis. People like me will not vote for the kind of Democrat he pines for. And people like me are the base of the Democratic party. I would not vote for Joe Lieberman or any Iraq-war supporting Democrat (that includes Hillary, by the way). People like me are the mirror images of the Republican right. We would rather lose than sacrifice our principles. The operative principle here is our opposition to big-foot neoconservatism which views the entire world as America’s playground. You may think we are wrong but understand this: we are the Democratic party (which is why Lieberman sank so quickly). Our model is that of the Goldwaterites. They did not change. They fought and eventually they prevailed. We will prevail too. Iraq is our trump card. And maybe Iran. The continued ascendancy of neoconservatism guarantees the triumph of neoisolationism. As George Mc Govern said, “come home, America.” The day is coming.

Can’t describe the problem more accurately than that, can you?

More evidence of the new, inclusive South. In Louisiana, a child was sent to the principal and had to sign a sad “Student Behavior Contract.” His sin? Explaining to another student who asked why he didn’t have a father that his mother was gay. The kid is 7. On the contract, he explains what his duty now is: “What I did: ‘I sed bad wurds.’ What I should have done: ‘Cep my mouth shut.'” His punishment has been upheld, the school supported. Words fail me.

“I have no sympathy for the insurgency. With a view toward my own preservation, I wish they would all cut it out. But apart from pure self-interest, I think that every mortar, whether it hits or misses, every burst of gunfire or roadside bomb is a dismal impediment to what can only be called progress. The wisdom and righteousness of our going to war are uncomfortable questions. But the insurgents rest on a justification that only the most ardent relativism could withstand. There’s nothing noble about them. They’re the Sopranos East.” – Matthew Doherty, in a revealing memoir of journeying through liberated Iraq, in, of all places, Poetry Magazine.

Here’s the essay we’ve been waiting for. What the Democrats need is a new commitment to fighting totalitarianism – of the Jihadist variety. They should keep their commitment to America’s minorities, to universal healthcare, gay equality, and abortion rights. But they need to convince Americans that they are serious about this new war. Actually, they need first to convince themselves. Purging the Michael Moore wing would help. Peter Beinart lays it all out here.

ONLY MARRIAGE: Yes, we’re beginning to see the real agenda of the religious right. State workers in Michigan will now have their same-sex domestic partner benefits stripped from them. Congratulations are due to Matt Daniels, Maggie Gallagher, Stanley Kurtz and all those who have dedicated so much time to making sure same-sex couples can have have no legal protections.

STRAUSS AND NIETZSCHE: Peter Berokowitz had a great review essay that dealt with this topic a few years ago. Check it out.

Finally, we’re getting more serious. Kudos to the Bush administration for finally cottoning on. But, of course, it’s an indictment of our military strategy that we can only boost the troop strength by delaying transfers and keeping some soldiers in the field long after they should get a break. Isn’t it obvious that we need to beef up our conventional forces? The public would be more than prepared to do so; the stakes are high; a draft should be avoided at all costs. At some point, the president is going to have to ask himself if we really do have all the tools to finish this job. The sooner the better.

HERE’S THE AD: It’s from the United Church of Christ – and CBS and NBC are refusing to run it because it’s too “controversial.” Decide for yourself. Josh has tracked down the lame network reasoning.

SPONG ON STOTT: Here’s a rather harsh take on John Stott’s evangelicalism from one of his arch opponents, John Shelby Spong. And here’s a useful guide to the heterogeneity of views among evangelical Christians – a diversity not represented by the political leaders of the religious right.

There’s been a diverting conversation over at NRO about the influence of Nietzsche on modern conservatives. Pejman fingers Richard Posner as a Nietzschean. There’s not much doubt that Allan Bloom was, as well. (I’ve often marveled at all those true-believers who read the thoroughly atheist “The Closing of the American Mind,” and didn’t notice a thing.) But if you include the category “influenced by Nietzsche” the answer has to be anyone worth reading. Nietzsche’s central role in our understanding of modernity means that no serious thumb-sucker, conservative, liberal or label-free, can fail to be influenced by him. A more interesting issue in the current moment, of course, is who among leading conservatives are atheists. Leo Strauss was, with a big dose of skepticism. Which is why, of course, when you think of the fact that Paul Wolfowitz owes his power to creationist voters, you can’t help but crack a smile. But who else is an atheist among the conservative punditariat? Or are they all keeping their heads down? Any atheists at National Review or the Weekly Standard? Just asking.

GONZALES AND TORTURE: The new revelations from the Red Cross about Guantanamo certainly add to the questions that need to be posed to Alberto Gonzales in his Senate confirmation hearings. If you want to pile on by emailing your senators, here’s a handy site from “End Torture Now.” If we are going to have an attorney general who devised new legal ways to abuse prisoners and besmirch the reputation of the United States, he should at least be grilled about it first.

FABRICATED DISSENT: An anti-Bush clothing company apologizes to the French.

Striding Lion weighs in.

DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ AND PALESTINE: Some Arab voices are beginning to wonder why voting isn’t possible elsewhere in the Muslim Middle East.

WRONG = LEFT: Jonah gets emails very much along the lines I do. If you quibble with any aspect of conservative-Bush orthodoxy, you’ve gone “left.” This is, of course, moronic. A realist critique of Bush’s interventionism is not left-wing. A small government criticism of deficits is not liberal. A defense of states’ rights against the Bush Justice Department is not left-wing. Now, you may agree with the Bushies on all these issues – but the notion that all disagreement is “liberal” is loopy. It comes, I think, from the moronic Hannity-style conservatism that has essentially degenerated into high-school name-calling of anyone who dares dissent. “Liberal” means nothing to them but a term of abuse. Of course, in many ways, the best strain in contemporary conservatism is the last resort of old-school liberalism. But that would just confuse the demagogues, wouldn’t it?

NO GAYS IN FICTION: An Alabama state rep wants to ban all gay characters in fiction set in public schools. It just keeps getting better, doesn’t it?

A color-code terror alert system – for Iraqis. (Example: Green is “low”: “No major attack expected on your house in the next hour. Chance of being burned alive or decapitated only 40 percent.”)

“I disagree with your assessment of Stott’s influence in the evangelical community in the United States. Not only is Stott a theological heavyweight, but his books are required reading for any serious evangelical. And, he is easily a more important and influential figure to the evangelical community in the United States than are Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. The influence James Dobson has had on evangelicals cannot be argued away–it has been tremendous. However, Stott and Dobson have influenced the evangelical community in two completely different ways. The best way to describe the differing type of influence that Stott and Dobson have had is to describe our relationships as “vertical” and “horizontal.” Stott has had tremendous influence in giving advice regarding our vertical relationship–the relationship with God. Dobson on the other hand has been successful in giving advice regarding our horizontal relationships–those we have with other human beings. The two cross over at times, but in simple terms, that describes it best. In reality, both have been very significant and influential. However, if we had to discern which of the two men has had more influence on evangelicals with regard to their FAITH, it is Stott without a doubt.

With that said, even having attended a religious/evangelical university I never once read a single writing of Falwell or Robertson’s nor did we ever study the men–except in a modern American studies course where we learned that they wrote the “how-to” book on political failure by squandering their influence. The same with Dobson. With the exception of excerpts from maybe one or two of his most popular books about raising children, I don’t remember his work being nearly as heralded as Stott’s. In contrast, Stott was on nearly every student’s bookshelf sitting next to Schaeffer, Tozer, Sproul, Lewis, Piper, and other modern evangelical must-reads. While it is obvious that you disagree with Dobson’s agenda, as do many, this is no reason to minimize the influence of John Stott. Doing so would be much like minimizing the influence of James Carville in the Democratic party because Michael Moore is louder and equally influential to a large number–but not all–of Democrats.”

More feedback on the Letters Page.