Andy Divine Rants: episode XXXIV Clinton,Trump & Dr.Dao. Political Reporter comments

It’s been sometime since I’ve read Mr. Sullivan, yet I still recall his days at The New York Observer, where he used his regular column to foment War Hysteria after 9/11. And to attack anyone who dared deviate from his self-constructed Party Line, passing judgement on the ‘acceptable narratives’ about the attack and the proper response to it. He and Christopher Hitchens were the Inquisitors who kept guard on the evolving Party Line, against America’s Fifth Column, as they played their respective roles as Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn.

Should I go back to Mr. Sullivan’s enthusiasm for ‘The Bell Curve’ in the 90’s as demonstrative of a certain animus/myopia on the question of race?

Mr.Sullivan’s political evolution/de-evolution from Thatcherite to Neo-Conservatism to Neo-Liberalism is well known, at least, to those of old enough to have followed The Sullivan Political Melodrama, through all its ideological permutations. But he does return to the home ground of sclerotic Thatcherism, in his attack on Sen. Sanders. It is testament to the staying power of his prejudices.

And yet she was so bad a candidate, she still only managed to squeak through in the primaries against an elderly, stopped-clock socialist who wasn’t even in her party, and who spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union.

The consistent theme of Mr. Sullivan’s latest essay is exasperation: that others can’t see what he sees, in the case of Clinton, Trump and Dr. Dao. This essay is an extended rant,  that you might watch on ‘Fox News’, Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity. The essay is bereft of anything resembling style, or even argumentative coherence, its just intemperate chatter, garnished in one sentence by the desperate exercise of profanity.  For the real practitioner of bile and spleen, on the level of near poetic inspiration, read Janan Ganesh at The Financial Times, he can write with polemic brilliance that, at his best, is unmatched.

Political Reporter


About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.