"This Is What We Are, and What We Are Going to Be"

"The more banal fallout of this all is that America remains a nation split between red and blue, with neither party gaining a decisive advantage. Republicans cannot triangulate or realign the electorate in such a manner to doom the Democrats to irrelevancy. Democrats can't seem to excite voters enough to revive the promise of an Obama-esque landslide. Democrats have the edge to flip the House next year, while Republicans should be the favorites to retain Senate control. The 2028 race is probably going to be a closely divided slog, no matter whom the major parties nominate."

Ross Barkan at New York looks at the state of American politics, six months into Donald Trump's second term.

As does Andrew Sullivan at The Weekly Dish. 

"A Funny Thing Happened in the Wake of These Triumphs"

"But this huge increase in funding was no longer primarily about gay, lesbian and transgender civil rights, because almost all had already been won. It was instead about a new and radical gender revolution. Focused on ending what activists saw as the oppression of the sex binary, which some critical gender and queer theorists associated with 'white supremacy,' they aimed to dissolve natural distinctions between men and women in society, to replace biological sex with 'gender identity' in the law and culture, and to redefine homosexuality, in the process, not as a neutral fact of the human condition but as a liberating ideological 'queerness' meant to subvert and 'queer' language, culture and society in myriad different ways."

Ten years after the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, Andrew Sullivan argues in The New York Times that "the Gay Rights Movement Radicalized, and Lost Its Way."

At The Advocate, Marcie Bianco reacts to Sullivan.

And in 2026, Sullivan adds "What The Dems Should Say On Trans Rights."

"Trump Is Not Just Toxic for America; He Has Proven Toxic for Conservatism"

"Trump does not merely break norms. He has broken the norm, the indispensable norm for the continuation of the republic, the norm first set by George Washington when he retired from office, the norm that changed the entire world for the better: accepting the results of an election. This is the meaning of America, and Trump despises it. I do not think this is even within his personal control. He is so genuinely psychologically warped that he has never and will never agree to the most basic requirement of public office: that you quit when you lose; and that the system is more important than any individual in it."

Andrew Sullivan at The Weekly Dish writes "[a]n anguished but emphatic endorsement" of Kamala Harris for President of the United States.

"Culture Trumps Policy"

"Right now, the mainstream of the national Democratic Party is still overwhelmingly focused on policy, not culture. They're trying to govern, which is the job they were elected to do. But at some point they'll need to start campaigning again, and if Democrats believe that the passage of an infrastructure program and a large social spending bill will provide the ammunition to repel a new GOP-launched culture war, they are deluding themselves. If you weigh the concerns of parents with their kids' education against a subsidy for electric cars, or a better rail system some years down the line, the scales will tip pretty heavily to one side."

Jeff Greenfield at Politico reacts the Virginia gubernatorial election.

As does Charles Sykes.

As does Andrew Sullivan at The Weekly Dish.

As does Ruy Teixeira at The Liberal Patriot.

"Expressed Regret Over His 'Attraction to Controversy Rather Than Truth'"

"But Republican politics have moved against Sullivan. Still calling himself a conservative, he has not felt himself able to vote for a GOP presidential candidate since 2000. Meantime, Sullivan has become more rather than less distinctly British in his conservatism in the 30-plus years since he left Oxford for graduate school at Harvard, as American conservatism has hardened through the culture wars."

Jonathan Clarke at City Journal reviews Andrew Sullivan's Out on a Limb: Selected Writing, 1989–2021.

Post-Liberalism

"But I am not making a tactical argument here. I'm making a deeper moral argument. We can and must still fight and argue for what we believe in: a liberal democracy in a liberal society. This fight will not end if we just ignore it or allow ourselves to be intimidated by it, or join the tribal pile-ons. And I will not apologize for confronting this, however unpopular it might make me, just as I won't apologize for confronting the poison and nihilism on the right. And if you really want to be on 'the right side of liberalism,' you will join me."

Andrew Sullivan at The Weekly Dish calls "successor ideology" a "revolution against liberalism."

"What We Can Know and How We Can Know It"

"Claims to truth are merely claims to power. That's what people are asked to become 'awake' to: that liberalism is a lie. As are its purported values. Free speech is therefore not always a way to figure out the truth; it is just another way in which power is exercised—to harm the marginalized. The idea that a theory can be proven or disproven by the empirical process is itself a white supremacist argument, denying the 'lived experience' of members of identity groups that is definitionally true, whatever the 'objective' facts say. And our minds and souls and institutions have been so marinated in white supremacist culture for so long, critical theorists argue, that the system can only be dismantled rather than reformed. The West's idea of individual freedom—the very foundation of the American experiment—is, in their view, a way merely to ensure the permanent slavery of the non-white."

Andrew Sullivan at The Weekly Dish explains what he sees as the threat to liberalism.

And later he argues that liberals can "use liberal means—airing this topic, exposing its arguments, decoding its language, explaining its ultimately totalitarian logic—to beat this illiberal menace in the field of public opinion."

"This Is Not a New Problem. What Is New Is the Medium"

"'Cancel culture is much more focused on punishment. Social media is like an accelerant to an arson. Everything moves rapidly and out of control. So, the slightest spark creates an avalanche, if you will, of retribution. There's no room for error. And the response is not to start a conversation or a dialogue, but to shut the person out in some way.'"

Ted Koppel at CBS Sunday Morning discusses "cancel culture."

"You Don't Get to Unite the Country by Dividing It Along These Deep and Inflammatory Issues of Identity"

"I wonder if Joe Biden even knows what critical theory is. But he doesn't have to. It is the successor ideology to liberalism among elites, a now-mandatory ideology if you want to keep your job. But Biden's emphatic backing of this illiberal, discriminatory project on his first day is relevant. He has decided to encourage 'unity' by immediately pursuing policies that inflame Republicans and conservatives and normies more than any others." 

Andrew Sullivan at The Weekly Dish criticizes President Joe Biden for promoting "equity" over "equality."

"American Politics Is a War of Attrition Right Now"

"So please, Democrats, look in the mirror and show a little humility. You're not nearly as self-evidently wonderful or widely loved as you'd like to believe. You are not destined to prevail anywhere. You share a country with a large group of people who hate your guts, and who aren't going to submit to your rule or go along with your giddy plans to remake the nation in your image. It's time to start acting like you understand this implacable fact and all it implies about the limits of your power and the parameters of the possible."

Damon Linker at The Week argues that "[t]he left just got crushed."

And Matthew Yglesias at Vox argues that "Trump’s gains with Hispanic voters should prompt some progressive rethinking."

As do Andrew Sullivan and Matt Taibbi on Substack.

Ron Brownstein at The Atlantic refers to a "domestic cold war."

And Ruy Teixeira talks with Persuasion.

"Applied Postmodernism"

"My view is that there is nothing wrong with exploring these ideas. They're almost interesting if you can get past the hideous prose. And I can say this because liberalism can include critical theory as one view of the world worth interrogating. But critical theory cannot include liberalism, because it views liberalism itself as a mode of white supremacy that acts against the imperative of social and racial justice. That's why liberalism is supple enough to sustain countless theories and ideas and arguments, and is always widening the field of debate; and why institutions under the sway of Social Justice necessarily must constrain avenues of thought and ideas. That's why liberalism is dedicated to allowing Ibram X. Kendi to speak and write, but Ibram X. Kendi would create an unelected tribunal to police anyone and any institution from perpetuating what he regards as white supremacy—which is any racial balance not exactly representative of the population as a whole."

Andrew Sullivan at The Weekly Dish argues that the "intellectual fight back against wokeness has now begun in earnest."

"Let's Find Out Why"

"The English language provides a great many solid choices for someone wishing to describe a leader who plays on mob psychology or racial intolerance. 'Demagogue' is an obvious one, but there are others—'nationalist,' 'nativist,' 'racist,' or 'fascist,' to name a few. They are serviceable words, all of them. In the feverish climate of the Democracy Scare, however, none of those will work: 'populist' is the word we are instructed to use. 'Populists' are the ones we must suppress."

Thomas Frank at Harper's Magazine looks at the original Populists compared to how the description is used today.

"Will Generate an Equal and Opposite Kind"

"This is not to say that some of the resisters are not bigots, just that no human society has been without bigotry, and that many others who are resistant to drastic change are just uncomfortable, or nostalgic, or afraid, or lost. The left responds by reifying all resistance to radical top-down change as 'hate,' and takes it as evidence that even more social engineering is needed. The right, in turn, radicalizes, and starts to justify or excuse that kind of hate. That doesn't explain all of our current political predicament, but it captures some of it. I feel it in myself. I'm a multicultural conservative. But when assaulted by the slur of 'white supremacist' because I don't buy Marcuse, my reactionism perks up. The smugness, self-righteousness, and dogmatism of the current left is a Miracle-Gro of reactionism."

Andrew Sullivan at New York discusses the difference between conservatives and reactionaries as a warning.

"The Great Awokening"

"Like early modern Christians, they punish heresy by banishing sinners from society or coercing them to public demonstrations of shame, and provide an avenue for redemption in the form of a thorough public confession of sin. 'Social justice' theory requires the admission of white privilege in ways that are strikingly like the admission of original sin. A Christian is born again; an activist gets woke. To the belief in human progress unfolding through history—itself a remnant of Christian eschatology—it adds the Leninist twist of a cadre of heroes who jump-start the revolution.
"The same cultish dynamic can be seen on the right."

Andrew Sullivan at New York argues that "[t]he need for meaning hasn't gone away, but without Christianity, this yearning looks to politics for satisfaction." (Sullivan responds to critics the following week,) 

And Bo Winegard and Ben Winegard at Quillette discuss the sociology of "Wokeness."

"The GOP Cannot Be Talked Out of Their Surrender to This Strongman"

"It is hard to think of a precedent for a president who endorses violence against political foes, sees the Justice Department as his own personal prosecutor, calls the press 'the enemy of the people,' tears children from parents, brags of multiple sexual assaults, threatens to lock up his opponents, enthuses about war crimes, 'falls in love' with the foulest dictator on the planet, refuses to divest of personal holdings in office, lambastes allies, treats the Treasury as a casino, actively endorses the poisoning of the environment, destabilizes NATO, baits minorities, lies incessantly, and oversees a resurgence of the white nationalist right. Any single gesture in any one of these areas would have been political death for most previous presidents. But we live in a time when we have come to expect that all this can now empower and even reward an American politician, rather than ruin him."

Andrew Sullivan at New York awaits the midterm elections.

"Everything's Speeding Up"

"Part of the problem is the unforeseen result of helicopter parenting. If you schedule your children from 6 a.m. to when they go to bed, yes, it can make a perfect heat-seeking missile directed right at Harvard or Stanford, but it can undermine students' sense of autonomy. It can undermine their sense of competence. And that's unfortunately a really effective formula for anxious and depressed kids. And the more anxious campuses become, the harder it is to actually sustain tolerance for outsiders and dialogue."

Julie Beck at The Atlantic interviews Greg Lukianoff three years after "The Coddling of the American Mind."

And Andrew Sullivan at New York reacts to reading Lukianoff's book.

"Enfolding the New Into the Old"

"It's a slim, concise monograph, and it begins with the truth that conservatism is a branch of liberalism, and not its enemy. It is the branch that tries to conserve the liberal democratic state against the corrosive effects and flaws of liberalism itself (not to speak of leftism and reactionism, which seek to overthrow liberalism entirely). More to the point, it does not defend liberalism as a function of natural rights, or of human rights, or self-evident truths, but simply as the inheritance of a particular place in a particular sliver of human history: the Anglo-American world in the last two and a half centuries."

Andrew Sullivan at New York explains reacts to reading Roger Scruton's Conservatism: An Introduction to the Great Tradition.

"It's Not an Emotionally Satisfying Tradition"

"The point is merely to keep liberal democracy vibrant, to sustain its legitimacy, and to protect its institutions. That's why I favor a slowdown in immigration (too much demographic change too fast can destabilize a society); and why I favor more redistribution through taxes right now (because economic and social inequality are delegitimizing the entire capitalist order). And that's why I loved Barack Obama. In his heart and mind, he is and was a moderate conservative, trying to blend new social realities with the long story of America, rescuing capitalism from itself, extending health care but through the market, shifting foreign policy incrementally toward Asia, and ending irrational, budget-busting, entropy-creating wars. He desperately tried to keep this country in one piece, against foam-flecked racism and know-nothingism on one side and left-wing ideological purity and identity politics on the other. And he almost did.
"And this is why I despise Donald Trump: He exhibits no concern for the broader social good if it in any way conflicts with his own immediate psychic needs. He is indifferent to the collateral damage of his ego. He has embraced the most dangerous form of identity politics—that of the majority. There is not an institution or custom or alliance or constitutional norm Trump won't vandalize at a second's notice. He cares little for the generations ahead of us (see the debt and the environment); nor respects the wisdom of the past (see his desire to obliterate the idea of an independent Justice Department or the NATO alliance); he is a lonely, maladjusted id, with Western civilization as a plaything in his hands. And Republicanism—in its shameful embrace of this monster, its determined rape of the environment, destruction of our fiscal standing, evisceration of our allies, callousness toward the sick, and newfound contempt for free trade—has nary a conservative bone in its putrefying body."

Andrew Sullivan at New York reacts to Anthony Kennedy's announced resignation from the Supreme Court.

"An Antidote to Trump and to Our Times"

"Most important of all, he never succumbed to the belief that evil was always on the other side, that those fighting for the good weren’t also capable of great wickedness, and self-deception. He was not one of those, in Mendelson's words, 'who can say of themselves without irony, "I am a good person," who perceive great evils only in other, evil people whose motives and actions are entirely different from their own … He observed to friends how common it was to find a dedicated anti-fascist who conducted his erotic life as if he were invading Poland.' I love that line. But what he saw most potently was that victims are also capable of becoming victimizers, that the best intentions come wrapped in the crumpled tissue of human fallibility, that 'I and the public know / What all schoolchildren learn, / Those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return.' He was, like Orwell, a patron saint of anti-tribalism.

At New York, Andrew Sullivan turns to W.H. Auden during the dark days of Donald Trump.

"Has Composed with Our Liberal Values Before and Can Revive Our Politics Again"

"Dating to early Renaissance Florence, its most influential exponent was Niccolò Machiavelli, whom Brooks, channeling Deneen, accuses of leading modern political thinkers to 'reject the classical and religious idea that people are political and relational creatures' and to decide that 'you couldn't base a system of government on something as unreliable as virtue.'
"But the essence of Machiavelli’s political thought is the opposite: He advocated republican government, which depends on citizens motivated precisely by virtue to look beyond their private, self-centered interests. In fact, the premises underlying the republican credo come ultimately from the ancient Aristotelean conception of the human being as a 'political animal,' whose highest interest was realized in participatory self-rule."

Win McCormack at the New Republic challenges the idea that liberalism was "the founding creed of the United States."

Park MacDougald at New York reviews Patrick J. Deenen's Why Liberalism Failed.

And Andrew Sullivan at New York contrasts Deenen's views to those of Stephen Pinker.