Now That He's In, The Tent's Too Big
With reference to Congress' intervention in the Terry Schiavo case, Andrew Sullivan opines that:
... religious zealotry cannot be incorporated into conservatism. It is the nemesis of conservatism. And it has to be purged in order for conservatism to be revived.
Andrew has spent a lot of effort trying to redefine conservatism to include gay marriage, but not people who go to church. Actually, to be fair, he includes people who go to church, but only under the provision that they support gay marriage too.
Andrew Sullivan is an excellent example of modern faux-tolerance. Pick a group with a grievance to champion, and then express extreme intolerance toward anyone who stands in the way of your grievance.
We're getting a lot of advice lately from people who seem to partially loathe the Republican Party how to reform it. I think I'd treat those statements with more credibility if they didn't advise us to broaden the tent by first purging everyone they disagree with. You find those kind of parties in places like China, and Cuba. And they are indeed very "big tent" kinds of entities. Heck, they don't even have opposition parties, because clearly everyone agrees with them. Political paradise!
Professor Bainbridge adds:
Tolerance for me, but not for thee. If you can't win a debate, ban the opposition. Those intolerant Christians cannot be tolerated any longer!
Hmm. I'm not sure a journalist who's British, gay, and a dissident Catholic, and who supported John Kerry in the last election would be our first choice (or 100th) as a go-to-guy on defining the proper bounds and content of American conservatism.
In any event, isn't the sub-text here pretty obvious? I suspect that what Sullivan really thinks is that there should be no room in conservatism for anybody who doesn't practice Sullivan's unique brand of cafeteria Christianity.
Any other bumper sticker ideas for Andrew's new campaign to save conservatism?