A conservative will always recognize that there is no substitute for character in political leaders and that representative government requires some basic form of – sorry – minimal trust if it is to function at all. Skepticism is not anarchism; real conservatives like strong, but limited, government. That’s why, though I have serious libertarian leanings, I still call myself a conservative. That’s why I see more insight in, say, David Brooks’ column today, than many on the libertarian right or civil liberties left.
-- Andrew Sullivan, June 11, 2013
Since Mr. Sullivan goes out of his way to classify these virtues as "conservative" (not based on actual Conservatism, of course, but on Mr. Sullivan's own special brand of Pineapple Ice Cream Conservatism, which is somehow always both a dessert topping and a floor polish!) what Mr. Sullivan is also saying is that Liberals, on the other hand, obviously believe that character in political leaders is meaningless. And that government does not in any way require the trust of the governed.
If that is what he is saying, I sure wish he had the guts to say it to my face.
Also in his heroic quest to avoid being called an Icky Liberal at any cost, Mr. Sullivan has now taken to plucking funny words out of the air --
My general inclination is to back the liberaltarians on these questions, but I have never been a purist, appreciate the political balances required and wish this debate were not also wrapped in accusations of treason and heroism.
-- just to keep that career-ending Dirty Hippie stank away.
Finally, working in that big, wet, ass-kiss of today's odious paean to lazy writing by the guy who is a few rungs above Mr. Sullivan on the Conservative Public Intellectual Pundit Career Ladder is such a perfect apple-polishy touch.