John Mark Reynolds wrote recently about “[t]he sad case of Andrew Sullivan, once a conservative, once a Catholic,” and lamented how Sullivan’s writings have declined from interesting and quirky to predictable and dull. Reynolds discerns a saddening trajectory in Sullivan’s editorializing, and suggests that there’s been an ongoing project of self-revision through these years of high-profile punditry: anything that doesn’t fit with his advocacy of homosexuality is drifting to the margins of his thought (some of his political conservatism), or being agressively redefined (his Christianity, which is NOT to be confused with Christianistism-hood).
Whether Reynolds is right about the drift and declension can only be judged by long-time Sullivan readers. I am not one. I finally gave in and clicked on my first link to Sullivan after his Time column on christianists. I spent some time reading around on his blog and the last few articles, and I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what was interesting about any of it, or how it in any way provided a mixture of elements not usually combined. But it looked to me like just another website written from within the self-conscious homosexual subculture, with lots of sex links and the kind of one-issue-centered political insights available at The Advocate. I just got here, but I don’t get it.