I like Andrew Sullivan, but his infinite credulity on certain subjects tends to over shadow his good work on others. His over-the-top support for the Iraq war and the general neo-con con about ‘regime change’ by force of arms was one example. Over time, reality seeped into his world view and he changed his mind. His game plan for ending DADT was another example. Sully’s ability to change his mind is what makes him interesting. His weakness to naively embrace certain tactics and ideas as the only possible course of action–regardless of facts and reality–is what makes him tiresome.
His latest infatuation–that the only way to be serious about deficits is to put the hurt on the middle class and the poor–is a fresh example of his credulity and his bias for an idealized patrician class. John, E.D., and many others (here and elsewhere) have written about Sully’s embrace of the growing fad to scream ‘DEBT CRISIS’ to justify transferring wealth to a few while passing along the pain to the many. The Thatcherite appeal of this kind of wealth redistribution appeals to Sullivan’s credulity weakness in the same way that Thatcherite appeals to Empire led him to naively support the invasion of Iraq.