Audio: Andrew Sullivan vs. Hugh Hewitt
posted at 10:10 am on October 26, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Freepers were buzzing about this yesterday before the interview had even ended. SeeDub burned the midnight oil to write about it. I started listening to it at Townhall at a little after 2 a.m., thinking I’d scan five minutes’ worth and turn in. I went to bed at 3.
Here, for the benefit of our readers at work, is the transcript. The rest of you have no excuse. I ended up on Hewitt’s side, of course, although his socratic-method trap-laying does get tiresome. It wasn’t fair of Captain Sanctimony to call him a “pathetic pedant” (at around 26:00), but it wasn’t entirely unfair either. And I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy him badgering Hewitt at certain points. No one who’s sat in a law-school classroom and been grilled will fail to appreciate the tables being turned here.
Plus, it made for great radio.
At the very least, listen to the segment that See-Dubya suggests. The idea of Andrew “Bandwidth Drive” Sullivan criticizing someone else for fattening his purse is simply too rich. Pun intended.
Here’s the follow-up segment with Lileks, which runs a few minutes too long but has its moments. In particular, when he describes something Hewitt had written in quick succession as “gobsmacking” and “vile,” an in-joke that’ll be cherished by Sully-bashers forever. See this a.m.’s Bleat for more.
Update: Hewitt’s new column is on Captain Sanctimony and, in vintage HH form, begins with a complimentary insult: “Andrew Sullivan may be the biggest wasted talent in all of the English speaking world.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Man, I can’t even read or listen to Andrew Sullivan anymore. It’s just torture.
(rim shot)
Enrique on October 26, 2006 at 10:20 AM
Sullivan is a total weasel. All that crap about “you’re asking these questions in a way that you know the answer already, which means you’re trying trick questions” is total baloney. I guess they are “trick questions” if you’re asking a guy who doesn’t even know what’s in his own book, but if you assume he does know what’s in his book, it is perfectly legitimate to ask him to clarify certain points.
Too bad the subject of the interview is boring as hell, and Sullivan’s book sounds eye-glazing as well.
Lehuster on October 26, 2006 at 10:27 AM
All Sullivan was, sadly, was extremely Begalishly argumentative. Tried to put his Ann Coulter on and answer every question with an accusation or declaration.
This is why you hang up or disinvite people in talk radio if you are ever bent on doing that media.
I agree with Enrique it was extremely painful.
EricPWJohnson on October 26, 2006 at 10:28 AM
LOL, Lileks was channeling Jim T Kirk via Nathan Thurm *smarmy lawyer)…
That is some funny sh*t.
benrand on October 26, 2006 at 10:46 AM
Sullivan came off as combative, immature, and, oddly, simultaneously smug and insecure.
DaveS on October 26, 2006 at 10:47 AM
Okay, now I’ve actually read the transcript…
Andrew is completely correct to call out Hugh at the beginning of the interview for asking about his Christianity. Hugh goes immediately into inquisition mode – “C’mon, Andrew, are you really a Christian or what?” If I were Andrew Sullivan I would have been waaaaaaay snottier about Hugh’s question “Are you a Christian?” (”No, I’m not, Hugh, I’m in the f’ing Falun Gong now. Ass.”)
But Andrew falls into Hugh’s trap and the two of them basically unzip their pants trying to prove who has the biggest monstrance. Andrew shouldn’t be trying to prove that he’s more Catholic – he should be denying Catholicism altogether. Like the rest of us who grew up Catholic. Sheesh. Besides, what the bloody hell does Catholicism have to do with whether or not torture in certain circumstances is necessary and/or effective?
I’m siding with Sully here. And I don’t often say that.
Enrique on October 26, 2006 at 10:50 AM
I think Hugh motivated his question well. He even said that he wondered at the end of the book if Sullivan fancied himself a deist, based on the content of the book. Sullivan spent a lot of time talking about Christianity, so Hugh was trying to pin him down on definitions.
DaveS on October 26, 2006 at 11:07 AM
Sully acted like a cjild throughout. I was highly unimpressed.
Kadnine on October 26, 2006 at 11:10 AM
As prissy in person as he is in print.
Personally, I like the Hewitt interview style. Just asking logical questions using well-research quotes from the interviewee themselves.
Clark1 on October 26, 2006 at 11:29 AM
I guess the Englishman isn’t used to Americans who don’t grovel.
mymanpotsandpans on October 26, 2006 at 11:31 AM
I’m with you Clark1. I think Hewitt’s interview style is amazing. He takes a guest and asks penetrating questions that force them to defend the weakest points of whatever it is they are advocating and he does it in a way that is actually quite respectful (don’t confuse pentrating questions with disrespect). I think that is healthy, and I think we could use more interviewers like him.
DaveS on October 26, 2006 at 11:45 AM
What’s so penetrating about asking Sullivan if he’s Christian? He might as well have asked him if he’s a witch.
He was plainly disrespectful of Sullivan. Now, of course that begs the question as to how much respect Sullivan is entitled to, but let’s call a spade a spade.
Enrique on October 26, 2006 at 11:54 AM
Did he do that to Mark Steyn during their interview about his book, though? (Not that he’s obliged to.) The Socratic approach is antagonistic in nature. It’s designed to point out flaws in your opponent’s reasoning. Sullivan knows that, which is why he accused Hewitt of cross-examining him. And so he was.
As entertaining as the interview was, it might have been more entertaining if Hewitt had turned it into a debate.
Allahpundit on October 26, 2006 at 12:00 PM
Calling a spade a spade is questioning Sullivan’s Christianity. Sully wears his Christianity like the trashiest of Halloween costumes. Good man? Probably. Christian? Nominally.
Beyond that, the man was a bundle of outrage in desperate search of a point.
spmat on October 26, 2006 at 12:08 PM
Sullivan knows that, which is why he accused Hewitt of cross-examining him. And so he was.
Did he expect anything else when he agreed to come on the show?
Lehuster on October 26, 2006 at 12:13 PM
It might have been more entertaining as a debate, but not more enlightening. Debates usually turn into shouting matches. What’s better, AS pushed to explain priniciples, or heated venting on whether we live in a fascist state?
Hugh gets people on the other side of the political spectrum to explain their basic outlook and prinicples better than anyone else I’ve heard. Go to any Hewitt interview with Chait or any other liberal writer and you will be amazed at what they end up saying.
Clark1 on October 26, 2006 at 12:15 PM
Allah is right Hugh was trying to nail Sully, but Sully ego step right up to the plate to get whacked at. Sully wouldn’t get called on his Christianity if he didn’t try and use it for everything he does.
djohn669 on October 26, 2006 at 12:18 PM
It’s only important if you consider one’s profession of Christianity important. Anyone can say “I’m a good Christian,” just as anyone can say “No, you’re not, and here’s why.”
The answer is to remove Christianity from the equation. Look, Sullivan wears it on his sleeve as a device – he’s pointing out that Christians who are opposed to gay rights and in favor of torture aren’t truly Christian. It’s similar to the way Phyllis Wheatley, the post-revolutionary era slave poet, used to frequently profess her Christianity to white audiences as a way to point out their hypocrisy in supporting the subjugation of their fellow (black) Christians.
Religion is always and ONLY a device. There can be no rational debate in which religion plays a role. There’s no way to settle an argument about who the Real Good Christian is, because none of us are.
Insh’allah.
Enrique on October 26, 2006 at 12:25 PM
I never tire of HH’s interviewing style. Asking questions that goes to the heart of one’s position is fair. If Sullivan is going to put forth his opinion by making his outlandish statements should be interviewed in such a way. No one does that better than Hugh Hewitt. Andrew is a psuedo intellectual that does not tolerate those of different opinions or those who he thinks does not measure up to his intellect. He should adhere to his statement about arrogance is not a Christian trait.
d1carter on October 26, 2006 at 12:31 PM
How? He said he read the book, and wanted clarification, because it seemed as though he was a deist, but he was arguing one religious point after another, as a professed Catholic.
What’s insulting?
It was the point.
Axe on October 26, 2006 at 12:55 PM
Lileks rules.
Jim Treacher on October 26, 2006 at 12:56 PM
You sound as if you actually believe that nonsense. Even if it’s true that certain “Christians” can be in favor of things like so-called “gay marriage,” a CATHOLIC, which is what Sullivan pretends to be, CANNOT. Period. End of Story.
Sullivan is a moron when it comes to his faith, and he’s a moron when it comes to politics. And apart from his ignorance, he is generally a first class prick. I don’t know why anyone takes him seriously.
Sydney Carton on October 26, 2006 at 12:58 PM
I’m listening to Lileks right now. He’s very funny and the segment makes me even more frightened at the prospect of listening to Andrew…The idea of someone sounding like that and being serious…eek.
MamaAJ on October 26, 2006 at 1:00 PM
i’ve got to say two things:
1) the lileks bit was very funny.
2) this sort of deep, divisive distantly polarized friction between two people each i think legitimately considering themselves conservatives demonstrates that conservatism is a mateur disposition.
jummy on October 26, 2006 at 1:08 PM
Asking “Are you a Christian?” is insulting. Someone’s professed religious beliefs should have no bearing on the weight of their ideas. Hugh could have debated Sullivan on facts, but instead he made it a competition over who could genuflect more earnestly.
Imagine a cut-and-runner asking “Well, have YOU ever served in the military?” Hugh was doing the same thing to Sullivan by asking if he was Christian. Which is, you know, insulting.
“But Sullivan makes his own Christianity an issue!”
And that’s a mistake on Sullivan’s part. And Hugh used the interview to compound that mistake, rather than seeing through and eliding it.
Enrique on October 26, 2006 at 1:13 PM
I do believe that nonsense. A true Christian would oppose torture in every case and wouldn’t hate gays. I was raised Catholic, and I would have to say there’s nothing Christian about Catholicism.
Gosh, it’s almost as if I’m saying there’s no such thing as a true Christian…
Enrique on October 26, 2006 at 1:19 PM
I might agree with you in another context, but Sullivan’s religious beliefs are the actual topic, the beliefs he recorded in the book. His beliefs are the ideas.
… but he does this in the book, as part of the book, and the interview is about the book.
Axe on October 26, 2006 at 1:20 PM
enrique,
Who said anything about “hating” gays? This is whether gay marriage can be permitted under Sullivan’s Catholicism. It cannot. I’m not going to cite things for that, but if you’re curious just pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which includes further citations to sections of the Bible and other faith documents, if you’re interested).
So I suppose the whole Nicene Creed thing that’s said every day at Mass is just bunk? This statement of yours is just plain dumb, because either it means you don’t know what you’re talking about, or you’re just hateful of believing Catholics.
Sydney Carton on October 26, 2006 at 1:28 PM
HH did not take an adversarial approach. He was merely ensuring that AS committed to his positions before HH pointed out what he felt were the flaws/inconsistencies with those positions. This is a very fair, and polite, way of dealing with this kind of criticism. I actually don’t think it is Socratic. You know who uses socratic methods to take cheap shots? Colbert. That is not what HH does.
What AS wanted was to go to a HH interview and either be totally free of criticism, or to launch into vicious counter-attacks if HH dared to challenge him on any of his weaker points.
If you go on a radio show to promote your book, you need to be prepared to face some tough questions, especially if you know the interviewer doesn’t agree with you. Trying to cover up your inability to respond to the tough questions adequately by making ad hominem attacks on the interviewer, which is what AS did, is every bit as underhanded as ambush interviewers who use cheap tricks to undermine their guests.
HH did not employ any cheap tricks. He is very open and respectful about what he is doing. His restraint is admirable. For you, Allahpundit, to cry foul as if what HH does is so sneaky or nefarious just because he is a law professor, is unfair and wrong.
HH is not ‘baiting a trap’ by getting you to committ to your positions first before criticizing them. He does this so you can’t try to weasel out of his criticisms by changing positions. There is nothing unfair about this. It is not a tactic, or a trick, it is merely a good way to help ensure you get substantive answers to tough questions.
Any liberal who has a solid, rational belief backing up his positions will be able to face down HH and strongly advocate his positions, and HH has no hidden traps or sneaky tricks in store for such people.
HH is conservative. MS is conservative. AS is liberal. Is it any wonder that HH would be more critical of Sullivan than Steyn? HH does not pretend to be objective, he admits his own biases and positions.
kaltes on October 26, 2006 at 1:40 PM
Asking someone of their faith and how they profess it is not insulting. Your argument has no logic, merely assertion.
Your assertion that individuals should be denying their Catholic faith is sufficient explanation of the rest of the words you type. Hating gays and condemning their sins are two entirely different things.
MarkB on October 26, 2006 at 1:42 PM
Sorry, but that’s total crap that he’s simply using to justify his behavior. A true Christian tolerates homosexuality but does NOT condone or support the behavior. Problem is, we get branded as “hateful” whenever we oppose efforts to condone homosexuality through our legal system.
God has made clear His view on homosexuality. And to those of you who reference Jesus’ views let’s be clear. He never spoke on the issue, ok?
The issue of torture is pretty clear as well. Of course we oppose killing and torture in all it’s forms. We also recognize the need to defend ourselves. We occasionally must do bad things to bad people to protect our own people and way of life. It is in this situation where, with a heavy heart, the Christian comes to His Heavenly Father and asks to be forgiven.
CliffHanger on October 26, 2006 at 1:43 PM
Excellent Kaltes
MarkB on October 26, 2006 at 1:44 PM
Speaking of cheap tricks, look at what AS said in the interview:
It is an interview about AS’s book and all he does is make ridiculously stupid, insulting attacks on HH, all in a vain attempt to change the subject.
AS didn’t want to be on the defensive, clearly, but then why did he agree to come be interviewed about his book?
Ohhhh that’s right: to sell more books.
kaltes on October 26, 2006 at 1:44 PM
To say that you are a Christian, and yet, not believe that the Bible is true (or that parts of it might be, but it is not infallible) – makes you a deist.
One thing is sure – you have relegated God and/or Jesus to a position of irrelevance in your life. You can ascribe any belief or postition you want to to Him. If you believe that Jesus was a good man or that He maybe was God, but we don’t know anything about His positions – so what? “Christianity” of that stripe is not very useful – certainly not relevant.
God wouldn’t be against (you name it) because that would be mean – is an unbelieving postion. And since Andrew makes his ‘faith’ the basis of his positions, or at least part of the basis.
What is the difference between his postion and agnosticism?
MYounger on October 26, 2006 at 1:47 PM
I was just being inflammatory there.
There’s two thing I’ll never argue with. I’ll admit that I frequently don’t know what I’m talking about. I’ll also admit I don’t think anyone really knows what they’re talking about and we’re all kind of just trying to sound like we know what we’re talking about to make up for inherent uncertainty of the human condition. Since there’s no way to really know “Why are we here?” we all try our best to come up with an answer that suits our predispositions. So no, I don’t know what I’m talking about, but then – neither do you. Or anyone. We’re all faking it to some degree.
And I’ll also admit to being hateful of believing Catholics. (Except for my mother, I’ll give her a pass.) I mean, it’s not I’m-going-to-burn-a-church-hate, it’s more of a snooty-atheist-contempt-for-all-religious-believers-hate. In other words, it’s a low-intensity hate.
Enrique on October 26, 2006 at 2:03 PM
This has been really interesting; thank’s AP. I’ve run across a thousand references to Vatican II and liberal Catholicism, all of them negative references, always from a conservative point of view. It was really illuminating to hear AS argue a few points I’ve been exposed to, from the other side.
Axe on October 26, 2006 at 2:06 PM
Looks like you found your purpose in life, Enrique. Good luck with that.
CliffHanger on October 26, 2006 at 2:18 PM
Nihilism – it’s making a comeback, I tell ya!
Enrique on October 26, 2006 at 2:55 PM
Kaltes makes the best points — congratulations!
Dennis Prager does the same thing as Hewitt; he asks his guests to clarify their positions before criticizing their logic. This is to be certain that he understands correctly what the guest professes or he gives the guest the chance to correct the record.
Sullivan continues to wear the Catholic label while publicly criticizing the Church’s positions. This dishonesty is all that I need to know to realize that the rest of what he says is likely to be suspect. It’s not as if he didn’t know the teachings of the Church; he just doesn’t want to have to live them.
The Catholic Church is particularly beset by dissenters who won’t disavow their membership. Excommunication should be used more often by the Church. Then we’d be down to a small core and could sell the expensive real estate before its all seized to pay for the crimes of homosexual dissenting priests.
Margaret McC on October 26, 2006 at 3:10 PM
I think Sullivan’s claims of Christianity are actually of key importance to discussion with him and about him, mostly because he is writing from a pseudo-religious perspective. Dropping Christianity from the argument completely would render the discussion nonsensical. He claims to be arguing from common ground with Christians and HH is right to try and get Sullivan to establish if that is, indeed, the case… Without talking from a similar basis of belief, discussion from such a perspective would be useless.
One of Sullivan’s key failing is that he impeaches his own argument more than once. He is critical of traditional conservatives, yet chafes at the idea that anyone really “knows” about the Divine enough to criticize. Does that not include him and his own criticism of conservatives? He chafes at the idea that someone would even ask him if he is a Christian (as if that were irrelevant to discussing a pseudo-Christian book on conservativism), yet makes all kinds of wild accusations about HH’s own beliefs without citing any sources. His own shoddy use of “research” and eschewing citation is amateurish at best and fraudulent at worst, yet he wants to sound as though he were mining deep truths and speaking with authority.
Lastly, Sullivan’s whole pseudo-religious premise for his statements is silly on its face. “[Normal Christians hold that] conscience is the ultimate arbiter of what they believe”? This idea is patently ridiculous and sums up Sullivan’s entire outlook. I’m sure Sullivan would like it to be true, but the entire point of having a religion to instruct people in morality is that the conscience is a completely unreliable arbiter. All people except the criminally insane have a conscience but that certainly doesn’t lead them to believe true things. Muslims have a conscience and over half the middle east believes that 9-11 was the work of Bush and his Jews. He makes many such claims as though they were fact, when in reality he has simply formed a worldview that doesn’t conflict with what he already wants.
Sullivan’s arguments are almost entirely ignorant tautology formed in an effort to try and argue that the world around him into what he would like it to be. The conflict surrounding him arrises when, for some reason completely baffling to Sullivan, other people in the world don’t conform to his fantasy. People challenging his silly statements of “I’m the real conservative” and “let me tell you what you believe” and “the Popes are wrong about this whole Catholic thing” mystify him. In the fantasy world of his own making where he has decided how things “are”, Sullivan thinks, “Who are you, oh Man, to answer Me?”
Lehosh on October 26, 2006 at 3:13 PM
Vote Pelosi/Reid, and thou will get Nihilism like never experienced before!
Entelechy on October 26, 2006 at 3:15 PM
How dare you invite me on to talk about my book and then ask me questions about my book! I know what you’re up to you evil conservative!
This man needs serious psychiatric help.
TheBigOldDog on October 26, 2006 at 3:16 PM
Nihilists! F**k me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.
EFG on October 26, 2006 at 3:47 PM
Enrique
There is a difference between not being able to ‘walk the walk’ in regards to Christianity and not recognizing what the walk looks like. When Sulliven opines that adultery is permissable and that you should further lie to hide the adultery, in which camp do you suppose Andrew lives?
Defense Guy on October 26, 2006 at 4:02 PM
For a pundit to be noteworthy he must have something unique to say, or a unique way of saying it. Sullivan’s only claim to fame is the “gay while Christian” thing. He plays it for all it’s worth, and so it is most certainly fair game to make him defend his positions on that score, primarily when it is a barely subliminal theme throughout his book, indeed all of his work.
At the same time, it is a perfectly fair debating tactic to force someone to establish their position before you nail them to the ground on that position. Hewitt is quite good at it, though he borders on the overbearing.
Enrique, I’ll take you at your word on the first point. You’ve shown in several threads that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and your admission of nihilistic tendencies supports your behavior of just tossing pseudo-intellectual grenades about. I give you credit that you admit as much, so you aren’t dishonest as well. But don’t project your loss of a valid belief structure onto everyone else to feel better about yourself. And adding the modifier “to some degree”, doesn’t give you carte blanche to make blanket statements about everyone’s ability to reason or cope. Knowing what you don’t believe, doesn’t allow you to draw a line directly to noone is allowed to believe anything.
I’m going to give you the first sentence there. In any discussion about issues where two people disagree fundamentally in regards a religious doctrine, it will always appear to be nothing more than a device to those outside of that belief. And Sullivan uses it as a device to appeal to his own utopian wish for reality to be his way. Beyond that, rational debate which includes religion is of course possible, when two people actually understand what they believe, even if they don’t agree. You’re again projecting your past of having discarded a belief system into there being no belief system worth having.
Christianity isn’t faulty. Christians are. Stop looking at the people, and start looking at the Author. It helps.
Freelancer on October 26, 2006 at 8:15 PM
There is one sure way to beat the “socratic-method traplaying” of Hugh Hewitt: Answer the questions stupid!
Cary on October 27, 2006 at 9:52 AM
Jen the Neocon on October 28, 2006 at 4:39 PM
Comment pages: