"Dicator Bush" - ex-neocon Sullivan lashes US administration in Murdoch paper

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

financeguy

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Dec 4, 2004
Messages
10,122
Location
Ireland
"Dicator Bush" - ex-neocon Sullivan lashes US administration in Murdoch paper

There is a core principle behind Anglo-American democracy as it has evolved in the past few centuries. Which is that you cannot rely on the judgment of one man or woman, unchecked by the law, or by parliament or Congress or the press, to govern a country. The reason is that human beings – all of us – are fallible. We get things wrong; our egos get the better of us; our self-interest blinds us; power corrupts us.

So America’s founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances to ensure that deliberation and debate would precede action. They made impulsive action very difficult because they believed that deliberation was essential to sound governance. And they also believed that any government’s actions should always be accountable, checkable, reversible and reasonable. This is why, in my judgment, the American constitution is such a conservative document: because it enshrines checks against absolute power, due process, deliberation and prudence at the core of democratic life.

This is the core conservatism that George W Bush and Dick Cheney, his vice-president, have systematically attacked for the past eight years – in favour of a de facto protectorate of one strong man. They believe it’s necessary to save us from terrorism. But they also believe the president of the United States is constrained by no law, no treaty and no constitution when he is defending the nation. Even when Congress has passed laws for presidential signature, Bush has attached provisos on many, saying he is not obliged to follow them when acting to defend the country. He has unilaterally suspended the Geneva conventions and unilaterally violated American law in sanctioning wire-tapping and torture. By any rational measure, he and Cheney have committed war crimes and their only defence is that they are above such laws and so incapable of committing any crimes in the defence of the nation.



Dictator Bush’s great illusion is exposed | Andrew Sullivan - Times Online


Some time ago, I spotted that elements of the Murdoch press were turning against Bushco. I think I was the only person on here to cotton on to this intriguing turn of events.
 
Sullivan endorsed Bush in 2000, was quite happy about Afghanistan and fully supported the 2003 Iraq invasion. he's since rather dramatically self-castigated himself over Iraq and has become vehemently anti-Bush.

as an aside, he can't vote for anyone because he's of British origin, and since he has HIV, he is denied American citizenship despite living here for 25 years (though i think that law may have just changed).

also, and more important to the actual definition of a neocon, Sullivan studied with a "Straussian" professor at Harvard, Leo Strauss being credited as something of the original neocon.

here's a post Sullivan offered with some background:

The power of Leo Strauss's students, and those who have in turn studied under them, upon the growth and direction of the Republican Party in Washington is a well-documented fact. His followers have been credited with providing American neoconservatism with its distinctive qualities: its emphasis upon crisis, its aversion to liberal tolerance, its rejection of pluralism, its insistence upon nationalistic superiority, its religiosity, and more.

However, far less is known about the degree to which these Straussian power brokers have misunderstood his teachings and distorted his legacy. Strauss actually had little to do with promoting a particular political party, nor any model of political 'crusade.'

For Strauss, being conservative implied, more crucially, that optimal political actions depend upon proceeding with a kind of thoughtfulness characterized by careful introspection and depth, as well as being deliberative, cautious, attentive to detail and non-impulsive. He was not known to teach adherence to one American political party or another. Strauss was more interested in examining the great political writings of the past and teaching his students a 'new' way to read important texts. He was well known for repeatedly appearing in front of his classes and venturing to minister to his own as well as to his students' ignorance by simply asking, 'What does this mean?'



Sullivan is an object of curiosity to me, since he's so open about himself on his blog, he's a prolific blogger, and i see him around town quite frequently.
 
Murdoch always swings where the money is. Whether that’s money from the consumer or money from the politicians, he’ll always try and back the winning horse, not the horse he really believes in. If there were some Obama plan that if elected would give Murdoch some significant business opportunity, you’d better believe his newspapers the world over would be falling over themselves to endorse. If Fox ratings fell through the floor and research suggested it was totally the dumbed down/conservative message, hosts like Hannity would be gone tomorrow. I noticed he dumped Bush sometime ago. His media is still, obviously, way to the right as a whole, but it definitely became “okay” to criticize Bush from maybe as far back as 2 years ago. Before then, no way. Maybe because he could tell it was a losing horse, maybe because there was something in the US that didn’t come to pass? Any loosening of media laws or something over there that Bush shot down?
 
Murdoch always swings where the money is. Whether that’s money from the consumer or money from the politicians, he’ll always try and back the winning horse, not the horse he really believes in. If there were some Obama plan that if elected would give Murdoch some significant business opportunity, you’d better believe his newspapers the world over would be falling over themselves to endorse. If Fox ratings fell through the floor and research suggested it was totally the dumbed down/conservative message, hosts like Hannity would be gone tomorrow. I noticed he dumped Bush sometime ago. His media is still, obviously, way to the right as a whole, but it definitely became “okay” to criticize Bush from maybe as far back as 2 years ago. Before then, no way. Maybe because he could tell it was a losing horse, maybe because there was something in the US that didn’t come to pass? Any loosening of media laws or something over there that Bush shot down?

I agree with your analyis. It was indeed around 2 years ago that I first noticed the shift.
 
When was Sullivan a neocon?

2006 :shrug:

What I Got Wrong About the War
By Andrew Sullivan Sunday, Mar. 05, 2006

In retrospect, neoconservatives (and I fully include myself) made three huge errors. The first was to overestimate the competence of government, especially in very tricky areas like WMD intelligence. The shock of 9/11 provoked an overestimation of the risks we faced.

What I Got Wrong About the War - TIME
 
Back
Top Bottom