Andrew Sullivan's belief that they're very important and his glowing assessment of the president are at odds with one another.
My erstwhile boss Andrew Sullivan has published my favorite intern advertisement ever. "We're looking for extremely hardworking self-starters," he writes. "We also prefer individuals who can challenge me and my assumptions... and shape the Dish with his or her own personal passions." Actively demanding intern subordinates who challenge the boss' assumptions is a commitment to epistemic openness equaled by few writers in any medium. And thinking back on my days at The Daily Dish, I can attest that those aren't just pretty words. Though Sullivan has been a huge Obama supporter from the start, he encouraged me to find him examples of the president's shortcomings on civil liberties, and never shied away from teeing off on a story I teed up because it made Obama look inconsistent or mendacious or immoral.
Earlier this week, I took issue with the way Sullivan covers the president. He was characteristically willing to link, excerpt and engage my argument, which I appreciate. The importance of the subject and my sense that he's missing my point make it necessary to go one more round. Given his eloquence and capacity for effecting change there's no one I'd rather persuade to put an even higher priority on protecting civil liberties and restraining executive power.
So here goes.
As I wrote in my original post, "Sullivan is one of the few Obama boosters with the reflexive humility to regularly criticize him on narrow issues and to air dissents from others who criticize him," but I wish he gushed a bit less about the man, because the significant promises that he's broken, the issues on which Sullivan and I agree that he's dead wrong, and the priority that journalists ought to put on holding leaders accountable make Obama unworthy of exalted praise.
There's a distinction between saying a politician is the best option among the available choices and that he is a satisfactory leader. To me, anyone who properly values civil liberties can't say the latter about Obama.
If under the status quo, writers like Sullivan constantly emphasize how lucky the country is to have Obama, how virtuous a person he is, and how much he deserves reelection, I wrote, what incentive will the president have "to fully investigate his predecessors for torture; to hold his Department of Justice accountable for Fast and Furious; to get Congressional approval before going to war; to repeal the Patriot Act rather than renewing it sans reform; to stop spying on Americans without warrants; to abandon his list of American citizens to extra-judicially kill; to reclassify marijuana under the controlled substances act; to end his war on whistleblowers; to stop invoking the state secrets privilege." This line in particular bears repeating:
It isn't enough to mention these shortcomings in individual posts, only to forget them or relegate them to "to be sure" asides whenever the narrative retellings of his term are being crafted.
Sullivan titles his response "Pressuring the President," and begins with the phrase, "Conor Friedersdorf claims that I'm not doing it very much." But that isn't actually the claim in my complaint, nor is my argument answered by the balance of Sullivan's post -- a long, link-rich account of all the times Sullivan has harshly criticized Obama on all of the issues that I mentioned. To state it explicitly one more time, Sullivan does write individual posts that criticize the president in terms every bit as strong as I or any other civil liberties loving opponent could ask.
But like other Obama boosters who I've criticized on these very same grounds, the harsh critiques always seem to be forgotten or minimized when it's time to offer an overall assessment. It's as if Obama took a driving test that Sullivan was judging, where he performed quite capably on a great many tasks, but also ran over a three innocent pedestrians, unapologetically broke a major law, and erased data in dashboard GPS system that tied the car's former owner to a few homicides; and although the test administrator complained at each transgression, his ultimate report pronounced America lucky to have so skilled a driver on the streets.
Let's go through the examples Sullivan cites of his Obama criticism. (All the links are provided in his post - I'm trusting that he excerpted himself accurately.) It's true, and to Sullivan's great credit, that he's described the president's refusal to investigate Bush-era torture as "against the law." The result of Obama's failure, he continued, is that a cancer is still poisoning our legal system. He went on to describe Obama's behavior as "betrayal ... a travesty, a disgrace, an abomination." It puts Obama in breach of the Geneva Conventions, he said. "The perverse truth is that, in some ways, the Obama administration is
in greater violation of Geneva than even the Bush-Cheney
administration." He later added that "torturers across the world - far, far worse than Bush or Cheney - are now smiling." Sullivan also wrote this of Obama (emphasis added):
He is therefore a clear and knowing accessory to war crimes, and should at some point face prosecution as well, if the Geneva Conventions mean anything any more.
On Libya, Sullivan indeed wrote that Obama's behavior was "a form of madness" and "recklessness on a Bush-Cheney level... What difference is there between Bush and Obama? In some ways, Bush was more respectful of the Congress, waiting for a vote of support before launching us like an angry bird into the desert."