Its ‘as if’ Andy thinks that his political past will never catch up with his latest personae:
1994:
Headline: Race, Genes and I.Q. — An Apologia
Sub-headline: The case for conservative multiculturalism
https://newrepublic.com/article/120887/race-genes-and-iq-new-republics-bell-curve-excerpt
A telling review of ‘The Bell Curve’ by Charles Lane in The New York Review of Books provides an answer to this book:
1994:
Headline: The Tainted Sources of ‘The Bell Curve’
The Tainted Sources of ‘The Bell Curve’
The third paragraph of Andy’s essay presents himself as a tangential supporter of BLM , not to speak of, a voice of political reason, and political gradualism, as the preferred vehicle for change. Has Andy ‘evolved’ since 1994? With a highfalutin reference to Marcus Aurelius, and the dependable self-dramatizations?
In the current chaos, I’ve come to appreciate Marcus Aurelius’s maxim that “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” And I have to say I’m horribly conflicted on some issues. I’m supportive of attempts to interrogate the sins of the past, in particular the gruesome legacy of slavery and segregation, and their persistent impact on the present. And in that sense, I’m a supporter of the motives of the good folks involved with the Black Lives Matter movement. But I’m equally repelled by the insistent attempt by BLM and its ideological founders to malign and dismiss the huge progress we’ve made, to re-describe the American experiment in freedom as one utterly defined by racism, and to call the most tolerant country on the planet, with unprecedented demographic diversity, a form of “white supremacy”. I’m tired of hearing Kamala Harris say, as she did yesterday: “The reality is that the life of a black person in America has never been treated as fully human.” This is what Trump has long defended as “truthful hyperbole” — which is a euphemism for a lie.
He refines his political position, in the fourth paragraph, by engaging the reader’s attention on the vexing subject of rioting and lawlessness. He proclaims himself a ‘one issue voter’ he is for Law and Order. I recall another advocate for Law and Order:
Headline:The ‘law and order’ campaign that won Richard Nixon the White House 50 years ago
Sub-headline: Trump has invoked the same phrase as he campaigns for Republicans
Andy was too young, and too distant, to recall the sine qua non of the Nixon Campaign of 1968!
‘But here’s one thing I have absolutely no conflict about. Rioting and lawlessness is evil. And any civil authority that permits, condones or dismisses violence, looting and mayhem in the streets disqualifies itself from any legitimacy. This comes first. If one party supports everything I believe in but doesn’t believe in maintaining law and order all the time and everywhere, I’ll back a party that does. In that sense, I’m a one-issue voter, because without order, there is no room for any other issue. Disorder always and everywhere begets more disorder; the minute the authorities appear to permit such violence, it is destined to grow. And if liberals do not defend order, fascists will.’
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-trap-the-democrats-walked-right
And even if he has read about it, its inconvenience to his fealty to that Law and Order political position, would render his essay null.
Political Observer
StephenKMackSD's Blog 