Wow

Leon Wieseltier has launched a scathing attack against Andrew Sullivan in The New Republic. He begins with an Auden quote Sullivan glibly highlighted a couple of weeks ago about the difficulties of explaining the doctrine of the Trinity to TNR readers. (As both an avid TNR reader and a Christian, the closest I have ever come to apprehending the doctrine of the Trinity was during an abstruse lecture by a friend on the works of Meister Eckhart, which is a pretty shaky high point. Perhaps I would understand it better if I stopped reading The New Republic?) From there, he dives right into what he obviously considers Sullivan's deep-seated problem with Jews, which permeates his writing about Israel, Palestine and the war against global jihadism.

The article is lengthy, and to pick quotes piecemeal would be to create an incomplete, flawed picture of the broadside. For those of you who are interested in this kind of thing (and presumably those of you who aren't have stopped reading by now), it's worth reading in its entirety. While there are bits I find unpersuasive (I think Wieseltier's denial of Jewish fundamentalism is a distinction without a difference, and I think he maligns Obama by describing him as "enchanted" with Muslims, rather than simply interested and respectful), on the whole he makes a strong argument for a shallowness of thought on Sullivan's part about Jews, Israel and Palestine.

He concludes:

There are decent and indecent ways to advocate change. About the Jews, is Sullivan a bigot, or is he just moronically insensitive? To me, he looks increasingly like the Buchanan of the left. He is the master, and the prisoner, of the technology of sickly obsession: blogging–and the divine right of bloggers to exempt themselves from the interrogations of editors–is also a method of hounding. Of course, it is impossible to know what is in a man’s heart; but on the basis of what Sullivan has written, I would urge him to search his heart. Such a reckoning would involve more than the “my bad” efficiency of internet introspection. I do not expect to see it. If explaining the Trinity to readers of The New Republic is not easy, imagine how hard it will be to explain all this.

As to the central question at hand, I think Wieseltier is being unfair to Sullivan (and also too easy on Charles Krauthammer). I have been a regular reader of Sullivan's writing in a variety of settings for over a decade, and I do not think he is a bigot, at least as far as Jews are concerned. However, I do think (as Wieseltier writes earlier in the piece) that Sullivan confuses his feelings with ideas.

Anyone who reads Sullivan for very long will begin to notice when he's gotten a bee in his bonnet about something. The most recent, and utterly unmistakable example, is Sarah Palin. Now, make no mistake. I think Palin is a disgrace, and the prospect of her further political ambitions is genuinely terrifying to consider. But Sullivan's approach to her borders on the unhinged, and his adulation for Levi Johnston creates the kind of embarrassment that moves one to avert one's eyes. (Dude, he's not going to write a book, and even if he does it will make no difference.) Prior to the advent of Palin's run for the Naval Observatory, he directed his loathing toward Hillary Clinton. (It seems a distant memory now, but his hatred for her was no less intense for its lack of staying power.) To a lesser extent, his obsessions with such things as legalizing pot or (heaven help us) the attractiveness of beards are similarly irksome.

In some cases, this has been a service to our political discourse and understanding. In particular, his coverage of the Iranian protests was yeoman's work, and deserves to be lauded. His exploration of the debate around late-term abortion following the Tiller murder is another such example. But when he feels strongly about a subject, and his emotions take over, his thinking becomes shallower and his tone becomes more strident in equal measure. This same belligerence typifies his talk show appearances, which is one reason I don't watch them. (Also, my cable is disconnected.)

Wieseltier mistakenly ascribes to bigotry what he more correctly describes as shallowness and emotionalism. When Sullivan gets upset, as often as not his thinking becomes muddled and his tone gets uncivil. Witness his immature and unfortunate decision to careless toss around the word "retard," a bloggy way of giving Palin the finger (again). I don't think Sullivan hates the Jews, or Israel, or is guilty of the kind of casual anti-Semitism of which Wieseltier accuses him. I think he's just mad, and sloppy, and has a bigger forum for his thoughts than is good for him.

Update: Sullivan's thorough, heartfelt and moving response is here. I think it demonstrates all of his best qualities, and why his is among the most widely read blogs in existence.