… good writers is that they sometimes feel that they don’t have to make an argument. They just have to make their sentences pretty enough and the world will swoon. Such it is with Lileks, who is a great writer. His blasts Andrew Sullivan for Sullivan’s endorsement of Kerry, and it reads like a shotgun going off. Appearances and noise aside, though, Lileks has only one point: I don’t trust Kerry on anything, no way, no how.
If that pellet is Lilek’s entire defense of Bush, then, as Sullivan notes, he must vote against Kerry. Here’s hoping, however, that Lileks isn’t so confused to think that he’s actually provided a reason to vote for Bush. Because voting against and voting for are, in fact, two separate things — even if they get you to the same place.
Lileks a “great writer?”
Certainly nothing in his career trajectory indicates he is much more than an average columnist in a medium-sized market.
But your larger point is well-taken.
I’m curious, however, about Sullivan’s switch. After all, it wasn’t too long ago that he asserted any dissent of Bush’s policies was the work of fifth columnists–much as the “ultras” in the election of 1800 did.
it wasn’t too long ago
hell, that battle is still being fought at Tacitus.
hell, that battle is still being fought at Tacitus.
Of course. But should we expect differently from Tacitus? After all, even the House Majority Leader has accused Daily Kos of raising money for “fighters against the US in Iraq”.
But should we expect differently from Tacitus?
Probably not, right now.
But I’m thinking that come November 3 (assuming there is a clear winner, which I think we’re all hoping for) there should be a general blogosphere amnesty: no one’s held accountable for any of the really irrational things* they said in the last 10 days before the election, because everyone went a little crazy.
*Everyone should get to decide for themselves which things they said count as “really irrational things”, of course.
even the House Majority Leader…
errr… wow. what a scumbag.
Everyone should get to decide for themselves which things they said count as “really irrational things”, of course.
Where to start? 😉
If Lileks is a great writer, then great has no meaning.
I’ve been thinking to myself over the last few weeks that it’s past time for DeLay to go. Nice to see my suspicions aren’t even slightly misplaced.
It seems to me that Lileks is a prime example of one type of Bush’s core supporters — he wants desperately to believe that things are in good hands, that the people in charge are doing the right thing, and that everything is on the right track. He wants this so badly that anything that doesn’t go along with this view simply doesn’t penetrate. To Lileks, the economy is humming along nicely (after recovering from Clinton’s mismanagement), Al Qaeda is no longer a factor, Osama’s buddy Saddam is out of power, democracy is coming to Iraq (sovereignty now; elections in January), other nations are coming to realize that we’re right and they’re wrong, etc, etc, etc. In other settings, he would be called delusional. Here, he’s just another Bush supporter.
It’s a sad thing, but the majority of people vote on the basis of ether “Everybody in my family has always voted Republicrat” or “this candadate makes me feel good”.
Concur with Jesurgislac’s general sentiments and suggestions. I’m not optimistic, however.
I think reasonable people can disagree; they certainly can hold different positions and views. Unfortunately, too many folks have internalized politics to the point where their party’s success or failure is seen as a referendum on one’s own success or failure. It’s become a sport instead of a process to move the country forward.
People have lost sight of the notion of voting *for* the interests of the nation as opposed to voting for or against a party or candidate.
Every time I’ve read Lileks, I’m kind of reminded of my reaction when I saw Titanic: Is that it? Color me unimpressed.
Lileks is an example of fun quirkiness that simply isn’t up to the task of handling more weighty matters IMO. Which is kind of interesting because the old line about how comedy is a lot harder than tragedy seems to be upended in our era.
Ultimately, Sullivan switched because he decided Bush had bungled the War on Terror. It’s still at the heart of his list of ‘things which are important’, but he basically has concluded that Bush has made far too many errors in prosecuting it, to the point where he just can’t tolerate it any more.
Lileks is fantastic and entertaining when dealing with old advertisments or pop culture debris. He’s embarrasing when he writes about politics. He really should just stay away from it. It’s not his strength. He’s not even a good hack. If the trauma of 9/11 caused him to emotionally bond with Bush and thus he’s voting for him then that’s ok* but don’t pretend that that is any sort of rational decision.
It’s been kind of sad to watch blogs I read every day like him and Instapundit sink into cheap hackery.
*that’s my basic theory for why otherwise intelligent people will be voting for Bush