Speaker 1: It is great to welcome to the program today. Andrew Sullivan, who's a blogger at
The Weekly Dish. His book, now out in paperback, is out on a limb collected writing from 1989
to 2021. You know, Andrew, it's so great to have you on because as a progressive, my very
left wing audience will say who on the right is interesting to listen to because I'm not
getting what I need intellectually from Matt Gaetz, for example. And I will often say,
you know, I actually think Andrew Sullivan writes a lot of really interesting things.
But the strange thing is I see very little in common at this point between you and sort
of where the American Republican Party is. I mean, do you feel like you still see your
politics in that party? Speaker 6: I've never seen my politics in
that party. I never identified as a Republican, have been pretty hostile to successive Republican
presidents. I mean, Bush and Trump, for example, a big supporter of Obama. No, my my view is
really from a more English conservative position of limited government, of free society, skepticism
about grand changes to society in general, and a belief in the West and its core values.
And and that meant that I did not have a huge problem, for example, in supporting Barack
Obama, whom I regarded as a bit of a moderate, a bit of an old school, actually. I always
thought of him as a 1970s kind of Republican. Mm hmm. And so I. I don't fit in, is the truth.
But I am definitely not a lefty, and I'm definitely not a liberal in the progressive sense. I'm
a skeptic of those those traditions. Speaker 1: When you look at to pick something
specific, the increased willingness from the modern American right wing to use government
power to achieve whatever it is they're looking to achieve, rather than stepping back into
what might be called small government conservatism, doing the absolute least. Does that concern
you above and beyond just, you know, whether you identify with the movement or not, because
it's antithetical to the way you believe government should operate? Or is it is it not as broad
a concern as some more traditional conservatives point out?
Speaker 6: I think that at some level, you know, the right in terms of the culture war
particularly does have a right to self-defense. I mean, I don't think that's completely outrageous.
I don't think it's outrageous, for example, that we should have states decide what their
abortion regime is going to be through democratic processes. I, i, I don't think it's crazy
for a state, for example, to look at its own educational curricula and positions. And if
it's that has been altered dramatically in ways that the the politics of the state doesn't
quite accept, then I don't think it's out of bounds for a governor or school boards
to do within the classic Democratic tradition a change of policy or a reversal of policy.
But I do think there's a sense of using the state as a wielding a sort of a weapon to
punish people. So, for example, let me give you a to Sanchez is perfectly within his rights
to say no in in Florida we are going to through the legislature, change curriculum and and
pass this this law. It's another thing for him then to use the power of the governor
to punish a company, Disney, for disagreeing with him. So there's a distinction there.
And I think sometimes it can get muddled up. I don't think the right has to constantly
disarm, but I do think the right has lost a sense of the limits of government, the need
to let society evolve on its own and to be tolerant of other points of view and allow
them their place in the sun. And that that goes for both sides, by the way. And I think
a great deal of the pushback from the right on some of these culture issues is a response
to aggressive acts by the progressive left. Speaker 1: When it comes to Democratically
deciding abortion law at the state level. Like you mentioned, Kansas had an actual vote
of the people of the population. Other states like Indiana, it's legislators who got together
and said we're banning it after. I think six weeks is the latest proposal, with very, very
few exceptions. One could argue that that's democratic in the sense that it's legislators
elected by the people who are deciding that. But it runs counter to public opinion, as
best we can tell at this point in time. So are both of. Those examples of democratically
deciding or is only when the people vote an example of that?
Speaker 6: Well, I think the Kansas thing was a very particular question because they
had already had some sort of decision barring made some kind of vote. Yes, there's a referendum
inevitable. No, no. I don't think it really matters how that democracy is pursued. It
may be that in the short term, for example, there are lots of people in Republicans elected
at state legislatures who are more to the right on abortion than most of their voters
are. Absolute will vote them out or or let your views be known to them to make sure they
are not following some preexisting ideological commitment, which, you know, for many years
it was so easy for Republicans to say, I'm for banning all abortion, period. And they
were never called on it because no one was ever going to be enforcing it. Now that it's
having to be enforced, I think you're going to get actual, real compromises and decisions
that are made state by state. And I think liberals or pro-life choices in general are
way too pessimistic about their chances in that process and I think will probably end
up in the US pretty not that far away for many countries in Western Europe. And although
we will have some outliers on the conservative front, but you know, America is more conservative
than parts of Europe and I, I don't have a problem with states coming to different positions
on questions like that. Speaker 1: The other because we're talking
about a lot of cultural and social issues, it was notable to me I've sort of seen this
building and look in watching Trump rallies over the last year or two, 18 months. But
it was very notable at CPAC that the biggest applause lines were the more overtly homophobic
and transphobic lines, jokes about pronouns. You know, I don't have the full list in front
of me, but when you saw the crowd really get excited, they were dead. When Trump was talking
about himself as the biggest victim in the history of the western of Western civilization.
That did not excite the crowd too much, but the stuff about trans swimmers and Ted Cruz's
pronouns and it really excited the crowd. Do you agree that there's been a sort of resurgence
of that sentiment in the modern American right, and are you concerned about it?
Speaker 6: I think I am within some aspects of the conservative, right. I mean, we're
talking about the Texas CPAC. Yes. We are talking about the pretty hardcore fanatics.
And they are so polarized that anything pro-gay, for example, gets attacked. But when you actually
look at the polling data of regular Republicans, you now see a majority of Republicans favoring
marriage equality. What I do think you're seeing is an understandable response to a
very aggressive push by essentially gender, queer and gender critical theorists to redefine
what sex is, to redefine what gender is, and to teach those three definitions to 3 to 4
year olds without their parents even being informed. And I think that has led to a backlash.
I honestly think it's understandable. It's led to a backlash. And there are plenty of
us who are very supportive of gay and trans rights, who are not nonetheless wedded to
this rather post-modern understanding that biological sex is basically nonexistent, that
you pick and choose whichever gender you have, and that there are more than 55 different
genders to pick from, and that all of them trump sex in every particular instance. I
don't buy any of that. And I think insofar as there's been resistance to it, it's been
a function of the left overreaching rather than the right demonstrating its its intolerance.
That's not to say I defend some of this stuff. Speaker 1: Well, I mean, you know, through
some of the some of the things you just said, I'm also against I've just not seen them being
taught to four year olds anywhere. I mean, where and I'm not saying this rhetorically,
like where are they teaching four year olds that there is no biological basis at all for
gender and that there's 55 choices to be. I just haven't seen that.
Speaker 6: Well, I recommend you check a couple of pieces I've done recently at the Weekly
Dish on this state. Curricula are now mandating places that were as in Florida, as in New
Jersey and other places with that gender identity and homosexual and sexual orientation be taught
from kindergarten onwards. Now, how that is translated is a different question, but I
can also show you plenty of children's books, plenty of lesson plans in which this is argued
for as early as three or four. And what they say, of course, they're not using words like
biological sex or they're saying and this is the phrase that comes across. Quite starkly
to me. You this is this is to a child who is kindergartner. You can be a boy or a girl
or both or neither or something else entirely. And it's up to you to choose. Well, I don't
I honestly, I think telling three year olds that before they've even wrap their heads
around boy and girl seems to me outrageously over the top and certainly not something a
lot of gay people even think should be taught and certainly affects gay kids who themselves
have a slightly different perspective, which is that, yes, we're boys, but we just happen
to be attracted to other boys. Now, they may not be they will not be aware of that in any
real sense at three or four or five. I don't see it as a problem with restricting it to
kids who are eight years old or above. And I don't think that's some sort of fascist
move. I think that I think the ideologues got out of control and they're being slightly
reined back in. And I don't think that's the end of the world.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, it's hard for me to respond substantively because I just haven't
seen what you're describing. So I'll I'll do some research on that.
Speaker 6: I think as books, yes. They're really the ways in which you translate it
to children. And I think it can be rather disorienting for children to be taught this.
Speaker 1: That young as a political question, what would you like to see the American right,
whether it's through the Republican Party or outside of it, wherever you follow it.
What should be the substance of the platforms on which those candidates run? Because especially
in the Trump era, they don't even really pretend to be about economic policy. They'll vaguely
talk about taxes and regulation, but there's very little substance there. They're like,
What substance is it? This stuff, the stuff about what four year olds are taught, because
that seems sort of flimsy as well as a platform. Speaker 6: It is flimsy as a platform. But
I do think there is a potent policy mix that's on the table, and that is for the Republican
Party to go left on economics, to do things like supporting, like take the pro-life position
if they actually got their act together and decided to really fund health care for pregnant
women, that they actually did put some beef behind support for bringing children into
the world along with more restrictions on abortion, then I think they would have much
a fairer hearing at least. And I think moving left on economics in terms of trade, I think
moving right on immigration and that combination with a certain amount of cultural not right
wing or but conservatism in the sense that we don't really want to redefine gender. We
don't want to suddenly decide that everyone has to overcome whiteness in order to become
a fully functioning member of society, those kinds of things. I think that's a very potent
platform. It's potent in Europe and it would be potent here if it hadn't been consumed
by all this awful authoritarian instincts, by the cult worship of Trump, by the anti
institutional, anti-conservative radicalism of many of these groups. And I think there
is a center there, a center right that will be made anew in the new world around nationalism,
around trade, around immigration. But that could be sane and would work very well. And
unfortunately, I think the Republican Party seems currently incapable of coming up with
that. Speaker 1: Is there anybody right now that
embodies that? I mean, who when you I know you don't like Trump. My guess is you're not
big on DeSantis. Are there people currently in politics in the U.S. that match this ideology
that you're talking about? Speaker 2: Well, look.
Speaker 6: To Sanchez has a certain edge to him. And he's he's posing as Trump essentially
at this point. Yes. But when you look at his early time in Florida, when you look at, for
example, he's been quite sensible and pragmatic on climate change in terms of resilience in
Florida, has been doing quite a lot of sane stuff on the environment. I think if you could
get past the the personality cult of someone like Trump, and I think if you could start
delivering. So, for example, if Trump had actually delivered on his wall, even though
we didn't, I do think you could have a more successful presidency than he did with Trump.
But Trump is just sui generis. He is a crazy person. He has attacked this country's institutions
and its democracy. He should not be anywhere near political office. So from my point of
view, unless that is resolved, we can't support I can't support anything Republican. But if
a Republican were to emerge who would actually acknowledge and recognize our constitutional
order. He can reform the institutions, but not destroy them and create a policy agenda
that. Is more left economically and more right socially then. That's a perfectly decent outcome
for the future of the right in America. The question is who can do it? I think, to be
honest with you, I have an open mind about whether DeSantis is that person or whether
he is not that person. I will see. Speaker 1: People like Mitt Romney and Liz
Cheney. How what's your perspective on them? Speaker 6: I. I. I have what we call a newfound
respect for Liz Cheney. I do think that what she's done has required courage and integrity.
And I think she's right. I really do. I think Mitt Romney's move on supporting family life
and the the economic stresses of young families with kids who are struggling to get by is
also very positive. I hope it seems to me that until we get rid of Trump, someone like
Liz Cheney is not going to be a player. But she's got a long life and we don't know what
happens. But I'm I'm very happy. I don't know about you. But when I look back at my worry
about Romney in 2012, I'm like, Jesus, give me any day of the week. Now, he would be far
preferable to these these nut balls. And he's he's a good guy. You know, at some point,
just someone who respects the rule of law and the Constitution and says so publicly
is such a relief on the Republican side. Speaker 1: No, I know what you mean. I recently
rewatched this Netflix documentary about Romney's I believe it was the 2012 run and without,
you know, rehabilitating his policies specifically, which I preferred Obama at the time. But it's
hard to feel like it would have been a crisis if Mitt Romney had won in 2012 in the way
that we've seen in the last four years, because he seems so comparatively benign and inoffensive.
Speaker 6: There are two things here. You can disagree with someone's policies. Yeah,
that's what democracy is. Right. Right. Vote for the other guy. But when you lose trust
in that person's respect for the system, for the institutions, and for the rule of law,
it's something else entirely. We. Since Trump became the nominee, we've been a different
world. We have been in a Democratic emergency because this is someone at the center of our
system who despises our system and who will seek to undermine it doesn't even understand
it. So putting that aside, it would be lovely to get back to a really good debate about
policy. Right. How do we best protect the environment? You know, I mean, and the current
bill, for example, is a bit of a hodgepodge, isn't it? But it's a decent hodgepodge. It's
a compromise that move things forward. And I the same with abortion in the States. Even
though you may hate the idea it's being done, it's still a process, a political process.
Find a compromise, move things forward in a way. And that's all liberal democracy should
be about. We're not about solving every human problem. We're about making things a bit better
if we can. And I want to kind of dial back these existential claims about what politics
can do and get back to the difficult, unsatisfying, but absolutely. The normally important compromising,
legislating. And I think the current Congress, after a rough start, has begun to hit its
stride on that. I agree. I will be I'll be very interested to see how the public responds.
Yeah, because I think the public wants this. I really do. Even though it won't solve everything,
it shows that we can do something. And I hope I hope that's rewarded.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And some of the polling data over the last two months suggests that things
are looking different for a midterm than than they would historically be expected to look
at. We'll have to wait two and a half months now and see. The book now out in paperback
is out on a limb collected writing from 89 to 2021. We've been speaking with blogger
Andrew Sullivan, whose work you can read at The Weekly Dish. So great having you on.
Speaker 6: Thanks so much for having this conversation. I'm really, really grateful
to be part of it.