My real problem is that, as a fellow Brit, I find it strange that he is so prominent. I don't think I understand the rise of his career. Wikipedia states that after his Ph.D he began a career at the New Republic in 1986. Five years later, he is the editor, sacking long-serving reporters and printing the most vile and bigoted right wing garbage. How? Reading his blog, I see no signs that he is a stunning writer, that he is particularly sage or savvy or that his policy knowledge is very deep. Similarly, he has no clear ideological constituency - I'm sure right and left disagree with him equally at times. This is probably something he misguidedly aims for.
Perhaps his greatest constituency is the media itself.Can it be that he is the world's greatest networker? He does seem to fit in beautifuly to the gossipy, elitist, centre right, don't-rock-the-boat Washington establishment. Does the idea of an openly gay right-winger appeal to this group? Risky for the Washington establishment to associate themselves with a homosexual - what would people in the red states think! Is this risk cancelled out by his conservative views? I'm sure this has something to do with it.
From the outside it seems to me that the American media establishment have elevated an 'eccentric' English guy (cos we're like that in the films, yeah?) who, despite some unorthodox views, is a very succesful socialite. I'm sure he can be very charming and entertaining over drinks- aren't all Brits?
The same goes for Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens made his name writing for left wing magazines in Britain and later the US. But make no mistake - Hitchens may have a capacity for hate, demonization and ideological rigidity, but he is not a threat to the media establishment. He is the court bomb-thrower - but he does it under license in an elitist enviroment he revels in. He too is a dinner party networker, a Washington gossip a journalist schmoozer(see Sid Blumenthal's The Clinton Wars). Indeed, his later Clinton-bashing and pro-war attitude largely followed the conventional wisdom of Washington pundits: Clinton - morally deficient, War in Iraq - Necessary. The media, fearing accusations of lacking values or being liberal, find they can accept Sullivan's homosexuality and Hitchens' criticism of certain sacred cows (religion, Reagan, Vietnam etc.) because both hold distinctly right wing views too.
Both Sullivan and Hitchens are embedded part of the establishment and they love it. Both are interesting, eccentric, charming and ultimately safe additions to the cocktail party circuit. Why? Because they are the ultimate creatures of Washington media. Pretty much the entirety of their American experience has taken place in the Washington insider/media bubble.
Anyway, if anyone can point me to a decent profile of Sullivan that might help me understand his prominence, or can suggest some reasons, I'd be much obliged.
Comments are closed on this story.