The other day I got into a little spat with Sam Rosenfeld over his celebration of “outcome” based “instrumentalism” — i.e. whatever works — as the core of liberal governing philosophy. Well, Andrew Sullivan offers a good example of what I’m talking about. He’s very upset with non SMTPs (i.e. National Review) for their stance on Schiavo (though it sounds like he and Derb see things eye-to-eye on this one. Heh). But when Gavin Newsom defied the courts and the legally expressed will-of-the-people and performed gay marriages, Andrew celebrated it. Indeed, it’s almost impossible to think of a time when Andrew objected to a procedural shortcut to gay marriage. This is what I mean by instrumentalism and why I dislike it so. Demanding that others play by the rules when you refuse to abide by them yourself is a very frustrating form of argumentation. It’s particularly frustrating in this case when you ask, “Would he react the same way if this was a case of Congress intervening to legalize gay marriage?”

I think the Florida court ruled incorrectly — it’s hard to know for sure — but I still think the intervention was probably a mistake. But Andrew’s complaint that the right is run by a “crew of zealots and charlatans” who will do anything because “God is on their side” is classic rhetorical excess. If these hucksters and crusaders recognize no limits on their power why did they choose the fairly modest option of having a federal judge review the case? Why are they abiding by the federal judiciary’s decision? All they did was offer Schiavo a modicum of the federal protections routinely offered to serial killers. Andrew understands pro-life theology and arguments far better than I do, which is why I am at such a loss to understand why he can’t muster even the tiniest benefit of the doubt that some of the folks trying to save Schiavo’s life are neither zealots nor charlatans.

Woops: I called Sam Rosenfeld “Josh” in the original post. It’s been fixed. I think it’s because I used to know a Josh Rosenfeld. My apologies.