Author: Andrew Sullivan

A reader prompts me to look again at what Tocqueville wrote about American political parties and associations. Tocqueville essentially contrasts American political parties with those in Continental Europe by drawing a distinction between parties that seek to convince and those that seek merely combat. In Europe, he argues that many political parties are so convinced deep down that they could never persuade a majority in a free argument that they give up on free dialogue and resort to propaganda, collective orthodoxy and, if necessary, extra-legal maneuvers. I think we could say that in the last decade or so, this tendency has infected both major political parties in this country. The Gingrichites didn’t try to persuade; they acted like revolutionaries. The religious right equally tended to treat their opponents as moral degenerates to be overcome rather than citizens to be engaged. Similarly, the Carville-Begala wing of the Clintonites launched a literal “war-room” to fight the political fight. Under Clinton and then Gore, any means necessary was the essential motto of the Democrats. It’s a sign of the health of our democracy that most Americans found both tendencies repugnant. George W’s civility is not simply politeness. It’s a political argument for a new kind of civil discourse. It is, however, an old kind – and an American kind.

Here’s the relevant passage from Tocqueville’s <a HREF = http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226805328/qid%3D983583836/105-5057869-2241534 TARGET = NEW>”Democracy In America,” in the pellucid new translation by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Hard to beat. The argument against this kind of association is particularly acute for those claiming to represent the oppressed. If you can’t see the tragicomic figures of Lanny Davis, Barney Frank, and Joe Conason behind these words, you’re wearing blinders:

“The members of these [European-style] associations respond to the words of an order like soldiers on a campaign; they profess the dogma of passive obedience, or rather, in uniting, they have made the entire sacrifice of their judgment and their free will in a single stroke … That very much diminishes their moral force. Thus they lose the sacred character that attaches to the struggle of the oppressed against oppressors. For one who consents in certain cases to obey with servility some of those like him, who delivers his will to them, and submits even his thought to them – how can that one claim that he wants to be free?”

Thanks to Virginia Postrel’s close friendship with Jeff Bezos, no less, the problem is now definitively fixed. Here’s part of Jeff’s email: “On behalf of everyone here, I’m sorry this took too long to put right. It really was screwed up by the earthquake… Thanks again for using the system. You are obviously doing something very worthwhile since you’re getting so many contributions.” OK, Jeff, all is forgiven. Thanks to Virginia too for helping out with this. Her own superb website is well worth a visit. Meanwhile – let the experiment continue. Click right down there on the right. And thanks to all of you who have already done so.

Is Rosie O’Donnell a lesbian? She has a female companion who accompanies her to most social events and lives with her and her children. In response to a New York Magazine essay (essentially ripping off my New York Times Magazine piece of over a year ago – see “Not So Straight Story” in the Greatest Hits), O’Donnell gives a meek acknowledgement. In today’s Daily News, “O’Donnell’s spokeswoman says that Rosie and her girlfriend “never hide away. Rosie’s sexuality has never been important to her and it’s not going to be now. I don’t think it’s important to her public. She is what she is. Rosie has no problem with the article.” Ok, she’s a lesbian. Or did I read that wrong?

Whether it’s Eric Alterman’s homophobic references to many resisters to the American Communist Party in the 1950s, or Paul Begala’s casual references to “butt-boys” on the right, or the long-standing socialist notion that homosexuality is a product of decadent capitalism, or Bill Clinton’s love of lesbian jokes, liberal gay-baiting is not unknown. It is not as prevalent as conservative gay-baiting, and if you want proof, there’s a few dozen recent emails I can forward to you. But it’s still there. So the fact that the Democratic Party in South Carolina is trying to wound Congressman Lindsey Graham’s chances of succeeding Strom Thurmond by insinuating he is gay shouldn’t come as too big a surprise. State Democratic chairman Dick Harpootlian recently put out a press release, saying Graham was “a little too light in his loafers,” to succeed Thurmond. Proof of the sincerity of the attempted slur was Harpootlian’s hilarious attempt to say he didn’t know what the phrase usually means. Graham is single and says he’s not gay. Harpootlian is married and says he’s not a redneck.

Oddly touching piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about a private visit president Bush just made to a ward for children with cancer. I don’t want to gush like Peggy Noonan, but I was quite affected by the story. Bush’s rapport with the kids seems genuine; the tour was conducted in private without media (the AJC interviewed patients afterwards); Bush’s weepiness may in part be explained by the childhood loss of his own sister to leukemia. Key passage: “President Bush was absolutely wonderful to these kids,” said clinical director Lydia Gonzalez Ryan. “I was really surprised at the attention he gave them. He didn’t leave one family out. He was charming, he was funny, and he was genuinely interested in how bone marrow treatments were done. . . . It was the best day of my life.” No one could seem to answer the question of the day: Why was the president visiting this particular children’s hospital? “I don’t know. I’ve been so busy with German shepherds and Secret Service, I haven’t had time to ask that question,” said Gonzalez Ryan.”

Want to know the real reason for the Clinton scandals? Try psychological pathology. For a bief tour of the possibilities, check out my new TRB opposite.

IT’S WORKING: Well, we think it is. Please try the Tipping Point button if you want to make a micro-donation to the site through Amazon.com. Any and all donations from $1 to whatever can also be made by check. Write it to ‘Fantascope – andrewsullivan.com.’ Send it to 101, W 23rd Street, Box 2347, New York, New York, 10011. So far, Amazon tells us we’re over $1200. THANKS. Thanks also for making February our best month ever – easily clearing 100,000 unique visitors in the 29 day month.

Irresistible story from South Africa. Several pipes excavated from the Bard’s sixteenth century home that date to Shakespeare’s lifetime have been found to show traces of nicotine, coca leaves, and possibly marijuana. Well, that accounts for “Cymbeline,” I guess.

CLINTON SEX SCANDAL: Please not another one. The National Enquirer hits the stands today with an alleged expose of Bill Clinton’s alleged affair with Denise Rich. My heart sinks. At this point, a sexual angle will simply reduce Pardonscam to the same level of tawdriness that we saw in the Lewinsky Affair – and Americans’ admirable reluctance to judge someone’s private life will blur their focus on the real issue of corruption at the heart of the current scandal. Historically, sex has both ruined Clinton – but also saved him. Lets hope history isn’t repeating itself.

Priceless email memo from Marc Rich lawyer, Robert Fink, released to the Congressional Committee. “I learned from Mike Green today that our case is still pending and is part of a large group that may be considered,” Fink wrote January 2 to Rich and Quinn. “But his friend told him that we need a rabbi among the people in the counsel’s office (it seems Mike’s friend believes we do not have one yet).” Somehow, I don’t think Fink was looking for ethical advice.

AMAZON UPDATE: Cryptic emails from their service department and a few trial donations this end suggest the button may be working again – so we’ve removed the ‘temporarily unavailable’ sign. Give it a whirl. Sorry to be so tentative about this, but we’ve reluctantly come to the conclusion that Amazon’s share price is way too high for the kind of service they provide.

We’re still up a creek, waiting for them to lift their arbitrary and hidden cap on donations. So please be patient – and my eternal thanks for those of you who already pushed us close to the $1000 mark within a few hours. My bet is that we’ll have a click and send option working again within a day. And before too long, we’ll have an option that isn’t Amazon. I feel dumb. But it’s hard to beta-test a hidden donations cap of just under $1000. Meanwhile, there’s always checks and the mail: 101, W 23rd Street, Box 2347, New York, New York, 10011. THANKS AGAIN.

The Daily Cal, the University of California’s newspaper ran an apology this morning for running an ad yesterday with the title “Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery Is A Bad Idea – And Racist Too.” The editors, caught unawares, responded today by saying that they would like to “formally apologize for the printing of a paid advertisement in yesterday’s edition. The full-page ad … was not condoned by the Senior Editorial Board, but we realize that the ad allowed the Daily Cal to become an inadvertent vehicle for bigotry.” Bigotry? David Horowitz has found what he thinks is the ad. You can read it here. I just did. Although there are plenty of reasons to disagree with the arguments of the ad, I can certainly find no evidence of actual bigotry in it. In fact, it’s generally quite persuasive, impassioned and informed. It specifically opposes the cause of reparations in part because of the blanket, racist assumptions that lie behind it, e.g. that all contemporary “blacks” are somehow victims of slavery and that all contemporary “whites” or “non-blacks” are guilty of participating in it. It says something about the creeping totalitarianism on many campuses today that even raising these issues is to run the risk of being labeled a “bigot.”