Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Robert Wargas

Bio

July 15, 2013 - 10:50 am

I have finally identified exactly what is so irritating about reading Andrew Sullivan these days: He rigs every one of his arguments so that disagreement with him on even the smallest point necessarily entails absolute moral decrepitude on your part. Sullivan does this by carefully positioning himself above the fray-in-question by first criticizing “both sides.” That’s step 1: establish an untainted position for oneself free from association with any embarrassing figures of the left or right. After assuming this above-the-fray vantage point, thereby cloaking himself in moral purity, Sullivan moves to step 2, which is to use his new strategic position to fire exaggerated judgments at cartoon versions of his opponents, which these days is almost exclusively “the right.” Every single argument is rendered in the most extreme moralistic language possible, so that taking issue with particulars is not possible; you’re either all in or all out. You are either Sullivan, in which case you are very moral, or not, in which case you are very, very bad.

His response to the not-guilty verdict of the George Zimmerman displays all these characteristics. You really must read it yourself to get the full flavor. I refuse to quote it here, though I have linked to it. Look, all commentators and opinion journalists are prone to self-righteousness, hyperbole, and so on. It’s the nature of writing about politics. I’m not immune to it. No one is. And there is a time and a place for anger and ad hominem…if it is directed at a particular person who has said or written a specific and clearly bad thing. But this kind of angry shotgun writing, which sprays its venom everywhere and which very nearly equates the idea of self-defense against a black person with legalized lynching, is one of the most egregious cases I’ve seen, especially from someone who claims the “pragmatic” conservative legacy of Oakeshott.

Robert Wargas is a contributor to PJ Media. A native of Long Island, he was educated at the City University of New York and Yale University, and has also written for The Daily Telegraph of London and The Weekly Standard. Outside of opinion writing, he has worked as a professional historian for a major research laboratory and university, documenting the history of biotechnology since the 1970s. He has also reported for both weekly and daily newspapers, including Newsday. He maintains a personal blog/website at robertwargas.org. Follow him on Twitter @RobertWargas

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Andrew Sullivan is an idiot. It is no more complicated than that. Of course he says it's not a jury of peers, because that would otherwise make Sullivan's idiocy legal and formal, and that's a lot of idiocy.

The "Marching Morons" have arrived in force to America. Rachel Jeantel is retarded, the judge is an idiot, Martin was little more than feral, the prosecution team was a clown show, Benjamin Crump is an idiot, Corey is incompetent, the NAACP is a circus act, the entirety of the Dem Party can't weigh simple facts ahead of their biases, and our President is a smooth-talking guy with an excellent memory and no brains to process what he remembers.

When's the last time you heard a catchy new pop tune? They've become extinct. It was so common years ago we didn't even think about it. Remember all the commercials on TV selling "best of" and "hits of?" Seen a single commercial for that in years? 1964 arguably had as many classic films as 2001-10. Some of the things I've read on the net about the Martin case are so stultifyingly stupid I can't believe they're adults. They're angry, sure of themselves, arrogant, and can't make simple comparisons, read, or understand history.

Andrew Sullivan: would you buy that for a quarter?

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (8)
All Comments   (8)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Oh and would someone PLEASE explain to these idiots that stand your ground was never invoked in this case. This was as text-book a case of self defense as I've ever seen in nearly 20 years as a journalist.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What a jackass. A. The jury was to be a jury of the accused's peers, not the victims. Read the constitution jackass. B. Trayvon was in the process of committing a high-level person felony upon George Zimmerman -- to wit: Aggravated Battery. So Zimmerman would have been justified to shoot Martin on THOSE grounds let alone self defense.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Andrew who?

I mean, yes, thanks for reading him so that we don't have to.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Why should I read his drivel? I know he's a brain-damaged weasel who should have been shipped back to England to deal with the head-choppers there.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Andrew Sullivan is an idiot. It is no more complicated than that. Of course he says it's not a jury of peers, because that would otherwise make Sullivan's idiocy legal and formal, and that's a lot of idiocy.

The "Marching Morons" have arrived in force to America. Rachel Jeantel is retarded, the judge is an idiot, Martin was little more than feral, the prosecution team was a clown show, Benjamin Crump is an idiot, Corey is incompetent, the NAACP is a circus act, the entirety of the Dem Party can't weigh simple facts ahead of their biases, and our President is a smooth-talking guy with an excellent memory and no brains to process what he remembers.

When's the last time you heard a catchy new pop tune? They've become extinct. It was so common years ago we didn't even think about it. Remember all the commercials on TV selling "best of" and "hits of?" Seen a single commercial for that in years? 1964 arguably had as many classic films as 2001-10. Some of the things I've read on the net about the Martin case are so stultifyingly stupid I can't believe they're adults. They're angry, sure of themselves, arrogant, and can't make simple comparisons, read, or understand history.

Andrew Sullivan: would you buy that for a quarter?

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"But this kind of angry shotgun writing, which sprays its venom everywhere and which very nearly equates the idea of self-defense against a black person with legalized lynching, is one of the most egregious cases I’ve seen...."

The real high tech lynching here is calling Zimmerman a 'white hispanic.' The reality is that the smug moralism of Sullivan is based on a white vs black lie.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
" I’m not going to second-guess the jurors, except to say the obvious: if that were a jury of Trayvon’s peers, then I’m a heterosexual."

Talk about not "getting it". You are tried by a jury of your peers, not any supposed victims. Trayvon was not on trial - Zimmerman was. Writing anything this ignorant really ruins anything else he says.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Taking the same argument as Jesse Jack*ss is clear evidence of brain damage.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All