Sullivan on Bush: 

"So far, so good"

by Matthew Tokson

President Bush’s recent appointment of Scott Everetz, an openly gay man, to head the White House Office of National AIDS Policy Coordination raises interesting questions about Bush’s relationship with America’s gay community. Though seldom mentioned in the media, there are over a million gay Republicans (and independents) who voted for Bush in the last election and who support conservative causes and gay rights simultaneously.

Andrew Sullivan, columnist for London’s Sunday Times and frequent contributor to The New Republic, Slate.com, and the New York Times, has emerged as one of the prominent voices of the gay conservative movement, espousing the legalization of gay marriage and Bush’s income tax cut with equal aplomb. The Dartmouth Review caught up with Sullivan to ask him a few questions about Bush and his gay constituents.

TDR: In the past, you've defended Bush's record on judicial appointments. Do agree with those who feel that his appointing John Ashcroft as attorney general will have a negative impact on the rights of gay Americans?

AS: I see no reason to think that Ashcroft will be hostile to gay Americans. He hasn't so far. He has said he will enforce non-discrimination policies in the federal government; and has met with Log Cabin Republicans. So far, he is turning out to be more liberal than Janet Reno. I wish he hadn't been appointed; I find his social views too authoritarian for my taste. But he hasn't been a disaster.

TDR: Do you stick by your pre-Ashcroft contention that a Bush nominee to the Supreme Court would have to be a moderate?

AS: I still think Bush would be crazy not to nominate a moderate Hispanic. Senate scrutiny of Supreme Court nominees is rightly tougher than for cabinet appointees. And I don’t think Bush is angling for a fight. He is more likely to advance minimalist judges on the lower benches—and Ashcroft will have a role in that. I believe in judicial restraint, so I have few worries there.

TDR: In a recent article for the New Republic on the common ground between President Bush and the gay community, you talk about how the estate tax specifically discriminates against gays who are denied the right to inherit from a legal spouse. Do you think that the gay community will perceive a repeal of the estate tax as a positive step towards equal treatment by the federal government?

AS: I'm against repeal of the estate tax, but as a narrow measure, it would benefit gays and lesbians who currently have no ability to pass on property to their spouses the way heterosexuals do. I don't think the gay leadership will congratulate him on this. Too many of them are in the Democratic party tank. But ordinary gay folks might. A million voted for him, after all.

TDR: In the same article, you warn that "without an openly gay person in a prominent sub-Cabinet position, the new paradigm will be a non-starter." Bush has recently named openly gay Log Cabin Republican Scott Everetz to head the Office of National AIDS Policy. Do you think that this action is significant enough to convince gays that a new Republican paradigm has truly arrived? You've questioned Bush's status as a "tolerant person" in the past. Do you think this demonstrates his tolerance, especially given Everetz's status as an open and active homosexual?

AS: I think the Evertz appointment was splendid. It’s an important first step in showing that the Republican party is not a home for bigots. I particularly liked the fact that Evertz is pro-life. He's a walking affront to a certain kind of liberal orthodoxy. For too long, Republicans have played right into the hands of the left by maintaining an irrational hostility to gay Americans. This is not going to change that overnight—but it's a start. I think Rumsfeld should look at the facts and realize that the military gay ban has no rationale any more but bigotry and end it. Now that would change the paradigm.

TDR: On the other side of the "quota" issue, while President Clinton seemed to be able to do no wrong in the eyes of minorities and women, President Bush seems to be relying on these groups to a far greater extent than Clinton did (as the Weekly Standard points out this week, 8 of the 18 participants in Bush's daily senior staff meetings are women, and both his White House staff and his staff back in Texas are extremely diverse). Does Bush have a perception problem among women and minorities? What effect is the diversity of the Bush Administration likely to have on policy?

AS: I hope it has a good effect. I'm not a quota monger, but I do think it's healthy that a democratic government be staffed with a wide range of people from different backgrounds who share the same broad goals. Bush has to find a way to demonstrate this without falling into the quota trap. In time, these people will emerge and be the best advertisements for his vision.

TDR: On another subject, as someone who finds abortion morally abhorrent but feels that there are problems inherent in allowing the government to regulate such a personal decision, do you think that President Bush's decision to end foreign aid to groups involved with abortion is a sound step towards promoting a decrease in number of worldwide abortions? Or does Bush's action represent an overly invasive policy towards international family planning organizations?

AS: It's a tiny shift that's virtually meaningless in the context of this debate. Lets see if he tries to quash RU-486. That's a far more relevant test. I hope he doesn't. [Sullivan has written in The New Republic that RU-486 use often leads to a decrease in abortion because of the higher level of involvement it requires from pregnant mothers ("R U 4 Life" in the October 16th TNR)].

TDR: Finally, what is your general opinion of President Bush's performance over his first 100 or so days in office?

AS: I don't regret endorsing him. He's a smart, competent, calm man. He handled the China spy-plane incident superbl.; His budget, if implemented, seems to me on the spending side to be admirably restrained. And he has demonstrated real outreach to the minorities conservatives need to build a new majority. Way too early to judge him yet—but so far, so good.