Andrew Sullivan all but endorsed John Kerry in yesterday’s Sunday Times. Here’s the clincher:
Domestically, moreover, Bush has done a huge amount to destroy the coherence of a conservative philosophy of American government; and he has been almost criminally reckless in his hubris in the conduct of the war. He and America will never live down the intelligence debacle of the missing Iraqi WMDs; and he and America will be hard put to regain the moral highground in world affairs after Abu Ghraib. The argument Kerry must make is that he can continue the substance of the war, but without Bush’s polarizing recklessness. And at home, he must reassure Americans that he is the centrist candidate – controlled neither by the foaming Michael Moore left nor the vitreolic religious right. Put all that together, and I may not find myself the only conservative moving slowly and reluctantly toward the notion that Kerry may be the right man – and the conservative choice – for a difficult and perilous time.
Well, no. Or at least, mostly no. But in true fisking fashion, let’s take it one line at a time.
Bush has done a huge amount to destroy the coherence of a conservative philosophy of American government
Andrew gets no argument from me on that one. In Bush’s lexicon, “conservative” has been expanded to include a new prescription drug entitlement for seniors, increased federal control of local education, the attempted usurpation of the states’ power to endorse and recognize marriages, and massive, irresponsible increases in discretionary spending. Lousy conservative that I am, however, maybe I don’t have any right to complain.
Now that we know where Andrew and I agree, let’s get on with the fun.
[Bush] has been almost criminally reckless in his hubris in the conduct of the war.
Criminally reckless hubris in the war? To figure out what Andrew means by that, you have to read his entire column. I’ll pick out the relevant bits for you