Blogger Glenn Greenwald has started an argument. "It used to be the case that in order to be considered a 'liberal' or someone 'of the Left,' one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day--social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, 'judicial activism,' hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies," he writes. "Now, in order to be considered a 'liberal,' only one thing is required--a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush."

The post, and a follow-up, has elicited diverse reactions from Andrew Sullivan, The Corner, Right Thinking From The Left Coast, Daily Kos, RightWingNutHouse, and points beyond.

I agree with Greenwald's general point but disagree with the main example he uses to support it. "One can see this principle at work most illustratively in how Bush followers talk about Andrew Sullivan," Greenwald claims.

While Greenwald is weirded out by conservatives calling Sullivan a "liberal" now, I was weirded out when I heard some Republicans refer to Sullivan as a "conservative" during the first years of the Bush presidency. I have always thought of Andrew Sullivan as a liberal--perhaps occassionally a maverick liberal, a social liberal, an idiosyncratic liberal, but a liberal still. Up until the Bush presidency, by which time I had worked in the DC-based conservative movement for more than seven years, I had never heard a single conservative refer to Sullivan as a conservative. Sullivan supports the pro-choice position on most abortions, favors so-called gay marriage, wants higher gasoline taxes, supports grandiose nation-building projects, and backed McCain-Feingold campaign finanace reform.

Sullivan supported John Kerry in '04 and Bill Clinton in '92, edited The New Republic, fears the same boogeymen (John Ashcroft, Pope Benedict XVI) as other liberals, and buys into the same leftist myths (Lincoln was gay!). While this isn't direct evidence that Sullivan is not a conservative, as the aforementioned policy examples are, it does pass the Jeff Foxworthy test: "You might be a liberal if..."

What makes Greenwald's choice of Sullivan especially mystifying is that of the nine policy issues he cites as legitimate indicators of "liberal views on the important policy issues of the day," Sullivan comes down squarely in the liberal camp on a majority of them. Death Penalty? Check. Gay Rights? Check. Immigration? Check. Abortion? Check. Judicial Activism? Check. I'm tempted to add that Sullivan supports a "utopian" foreign policy, but no doubt Greenwald and Sullivan, not to mention their Bush-groupie critics, would object--"utopian" being quite a subjective word. Defining conservatism through a checklist of policy issues is certainly faulty. But it's worth noting that on the checklist that Greenwald devises, Sullivan falls short on a majority of issues. Conservatism is more of a general attitude than a specific line of policies, so that when one bucks other conservatives on a specific policy or two, the majority of conservatives--if they are actually conservatives--generally don't begin shouting "unclean! unclean!" But when one finds himself fighting against traditional conservative positions on a majority of issues, he can't complain when conservatives view him as a liberal.

In other words, Greenwald has it reversed. The problem was that Republican hacks called Sullivan a conservative when he merely supported George W. Bush to earn that tag, not that they call Sullivan a liberal when he no longer fawns on the president. Sullivan is free to label himself however he chooses, and Greenwald is free to follow suit. But actual conservatives are also free to determine whether the "conservative" label fits or not. Sullivan may be hard to pigeonhole in either the liberal or conservative camp, but it requires a redefining of conservatism to associate that label with him.

Sullivan aside, Greenwald's general point stands. As the concept "conservatism" has gained popularity, it has attracted Republican hacks who want the rub from conservatism without having to stand by the principles associated with it. Thus, "Republican" has been confused for "conservative" in some minds. Rebelling against Republicans, as Donald Devine and Bruce Bartlett could tell you, can get you in trouble with "conservatives." Railing against conservatism, as Andrew Sullivan could tell you, will not inhibit your popularity among Republicans.

The Harvard IOP recently put their forum video archive on the web. A recent one I watched was a debate between Bill Kristol and Andrew Sullivan from 1999: Conservatism and Virtue. Seems to me that Andrew is a conservative leaning liberal, which is better than a liberal leaning liberal I guess.

At least Dan pays attention at Mass.

Greenwald's article is just the first whiff of the new leftist meme. They now know that being tagged as a "liberal" or "leftist" means being tagged as an out-of-touch loser. They cannot dodge the label since that is what they are, so their next best effort will be to try to paint everyone as a liberal so the sting is lessened. But it won't work. It's just the latest in a long list of bogus efforts to use sleight-of-hand to disguise what these people actually stand for.

I would add that conservatives generally don't, as a rule, advertise for "bare back" sex in male porn magazines. You can still do that and be a Republican, Democrat or independent...but not a conservative. Sullivan doesn't make the cut there either.

I'd put Andrew on the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Not sure if he really supported Bill Clinton in 1992 or was forced to editorialize that way by the magazine, which after all was the flagship of the DLC movement.

I'm amused to see Peter Daou classifying Greenwald as "progressive" today; ironic considering that Glenn devotes a couple paragraphs decrying Conservative attempts to disparage him as a "liberal".

I'd put Andrew on the Libertarian wing...

You've got to be joking. Sullivan a libertarian? He's a far-left ideologue. His only claim to anything else was his fleeting support for the war which waned quickly. I used to read his column daily, but as I watched him slowly disintegrate and cast off his various masks to reveal the far-lefty inside, I quit. He looks at EVERYTHING through the prism of homosexuality. And he despises George W. Bush.

How do you know Lincoln wasn't gay? Were you there? Just because he was married and had children doesn't mean he didn't have a homosexual lover or lovers. It's just like you dumb f*uks to talk about shit that you know nothing about. Have you looked at the evidence or checked the facts? Probably not, but let's not let thoes peskey details get in the way of a good liberal bashing. That's what makes you assholes sooooo entertaining - you're a bunch of hypocrits and don't even realize it.

How do you know Lincoln wasn't gay?

What a stupid question, but considering the source, no wonder.

Were you there? Just because he was married and had children doesn't mean he didn't have a homosexual lover or lovers.

Nobody alive was there including you, my limp-wristed butt pirate.

It's just like you dumb f*uks to talk about shit that you know nothing about.

You don't have to rob a bank to know bank robbery is wrong. Nor do you have to have "experience" in the deviance of homosexuality to know it is equally wrong and sick-minded.

Have you looked at the evidence or checked the facts? Probably not, but let's not let thoes peskey details get in the way of a good liberal bashing.

It is particularly illustrative that you provide no "evidence" or "facts" just ad-hominem attacks.

That's what makes you assholes sooooo entertaining - you're a bunch of hypocrits and don't even realize it.

Whatever makes you feel better, Mr. Puffer - or should I just call you Peter?