« Beer Snobbery | Main | Food Adulteration Update: Chinese Grain Producer Demolished Own Plant And Fled Before Arrest »
May 11, 2007
Interesting!!
Michael Kinsley offers this throwaway line in an otherwise fun review of Hitchens' new book:
Under the unwritten and somewhat eccentric rules of American public discourse, a statement that contradicts everything you have ever said before is considered for that reason to be especially sincere, courageous and dependable.
It's remarkable that prominent journalists will simply admit that an easy way to attract a reputation for intellectual independence is to engage in an endless series of ideological repositionings, and this does not appear to give them pause. All due acclaim to Kinsley for writing it, but this is actually a problem, not just an endearing quirk in a noble profession. Kinsley, in fact, goes onto explain how Hitchens has made a career out of exploiting this loophole:
Christopher Hitchens had seemed to be solving this problem by turning his conversion into an ideological “Dance of the Seven Veils.” Long ago he came out against abortion. Interesting! Then he discovered and made quite a kosher meal of the fact that his mother, deceased, was Jewish, which under Jewish law meant he himself was Jewish. Interesting!! (He was notorious at the time for his anti-Zionist sympathies.) In the 1990s, Hitchens was virulently, and somewhat inexplicably, hostile to President Bill Clinton. Interesting!!! You would have thought that Clinton’s decadence — the thing that bothered other liberals and leftists the most — would have positively appealed to Hitchens. Finally and recently, he became the most (possibly the only) intellectually serious non-neocon supporter of George W. Bush’s Iraq war. Interesting!!!!
Yes. So very, very, interesting. I feel like cursing or possibly imputing ill-motives, but that would make me worse than Richard Perle, or something.
May 11, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
"Finally and recently, he became the most (possibly the only) intellectually serious non-neocon supporter of George W. Bush’s Iraq war."
There were others. Just off the top of my head, these folks all at least flirted with the idea of supporting the war, before coming to their senses:
Matthew Yglesias, Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall, Mark Kleiman, Ogged, Andrew Northrup (The Poor Man) and Belle Waring.
It reads like a "best of the blogosphere" list, doesn't it?
I'm embarassed to say that they had me convinced for awhile, too :(
Posted by: julian | May 11, 2007 3:46:14 PM
Finally and recently, he became the most (possibly the only) intellectually serious non-neocon supporter of George W. Bush’s Iraq war.
I don't understand the rote genuflection to Hitchens's supposedly powerful and serious intellect. Beneath the erudition and the accent, what arguments did he make for the invasion (and the continued occupation) that were any different or more persuasive than those made by scores of other Iraq hawks?
Posted by: Jason | May 11, 2007 3:48:19 PM
"endless serious (sic) of ideological" & "All do (sic)acclaim"
Okay, call me picky. However, do you ever read what you have written before you print it? Did you and Matt Yglesias attend the same schools?
Posted by: Hunter Quinn | May 11, 2007 3:55:27 PM
"All do acclaim"
you mean "due".
Did MY goestrite this poast?
Posted by: ed | May 11, 2007 3:55:54 PM
Plus, what the hell - non-neocon? Is there really any doubt that Hitchens has hitched his wagon to the neocon agenda? He doesn't even really deny it:
AMY GOODMAN: Would you say, Christopher, that you've joined the ranks now of the neo-cons, the neo-conservatives?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: I couldn't quite say that, partly because of the clip you did just show. I mean, there is a division within the neo-conservative movement, which is, by the way, one of the tests of its authenticity as a tendency. I would say I was a supporter of Paul Wolfowitz, though, if you want that answer from me.
Posted by: Jason | May 11, 2007 3:59:39 PM
I can't see that you and Kinsley disagree. He's just being nicer about it and letting people reach their own (rather obvious) conclusions.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 11, 2007 4:02:22 PM
but look, sanpete, that's part of the point.
The way Kinsley phrases it, Hitchens can keep on doing his dishonest thing, and *there are no consequences*. Hitchens is never called on the carpet, publicly, for being an intellectual whore.
This is what's wrong with the msm: whether it's hiatt and broder or kinsley and his pals, once you have a mainstream gig you can do no wrong. lying, misleading, spinning--all is forgiven, or laughed off as an eccentricity.
The fact that this bastard's lies helped to get a lot of people killed, and gave cover to an administration that is trying to engineer a fascist coup--that's something we're just supposed to be nice about and let people draw their own conclusions.
forget that noise. call them on it publicly; name and shame.
Posted by: ed | May 11, 2007 4:07:33 PM
The way Kinsley phrases it, Hitchens can keep on doing his dishonest thing, and *there are no consequences*. Hitchens is never called on the carpet, publicly, for being an intellectual whore.
On the contrary, that's exactly what Kinsley did, just not in those overblown terms. The implications were plain enough. I'd much prefer to read someone who writes carefully, more accurately and with restraint as Kinsley did than someone who flies off the handle as you did and greatly exaggerates the crimes involved.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 11, 2007 4:30:23 PM
Norm Finkelstein had an awesome essay that deals in part with this issue: http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein09102003.html The key insight is that Hitchens' career was based on this behavior long before his 9/11 conversion.
Posted by: tps12 | May 11, 2007 4:30:32 PM
In addition to Julian's list of blogosphere war supporters, there were also many other non-neo-cons - Paul Berman and Jacob Weisberg come to mind. Christopher Hitchens mainly sticks out for how vociferously he supported the war and for continuing to defend it long after everyone else had turned against it.
Posted by: peep | May 11, 2007 4:33:31 PM
On the spelling, let he who writes nine posts a day in between other job duties throw the first stone...
Posted by: Ezra | May 11, 2007 4:44:17 PM
In partial defense of Hitchens, he's British. They draw their ideological lines differently over there.
We may wonder why he was so hostile to Clinton, but an old Labour supporter wouldn't have much use for Bill. His support for the war is clearly influenced by his loathing for religion, particularly fundamentalism. The most outpsoken anti-islamists in Europe are non-believers, unlike in the US.
Posted by: Gorgle Erf | May 11, 2007 4:46:40 PM
on the spelling, yeah, consider yourself forgiven.
I wrote a comment on a different thread and was shocked to see it appear w/ two spelling errors in the course of two lines.
Happens.
Posted by: ed | May 11, 2007 4:47:34 PM
Characterizing Hitchens as the only "intellectually serious non-neocon" is absurd. Read any of his columns at Slate about Iraq and you'll see exactly what a I mean. A child could poke holes in his arguments. The only thing he has going for him is spleen and vitriol and sarcasm, which does not "serious" him make.
Posted by: Xanthippas | May 11, 2007 4:47:47 PM
I saw Hitchens last night at Politics and Prose in DC and I must say it was quite a performance. The guy is an amazing polemicist, he's witty, erudite, articulate and vicious in that oh so civilized English debating style. He absoutely swatted away a couple of pretty smart religious types who questioned him. He was completely lucid, did not appear to have had a drink, and was in really fine form.
All of which makes me even crazier about his stance on the Iraq war (and Clinton too), where he has made common cause with the worst element in our political lives. I don't really know what to make of the guy.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | May 11, 2007 4:48:41 PM
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/10/arts/IDLEDE12.php
just in case you want the rest of the review, which now appears to be behind a goddamn firewall.
Posted by: ts | May 11, 2007 5:00:02 PM
I've long suspected the only reason people take Hitchens seriously is that he's a brilliant prose stylist. But he always seemed nuts and self serving. I used to dismiss him as a rather articulate, witty part of the fringe, crazy-Noam-Chomsky-left. Now I dismiss him as an articulate, witty member of the mainstream, crazy-Richard-Perle-right. Either way, I sometimes enjoy reading him for his stylistic flamboyance, but never took him seriously as a political thinker. But some of his literary criticism is genuinely worthwhile. He's worth taking seriously for what he has to say about literary style and rhetoric. But as for as political ideas go, he's a hollow man.
Posted by: PF J. | May 11, 2007 5:17:03 PM
In partial defense of Hitchens, he's British. They draw their ideological lines differently over there.
Since Hitchens draws most of his lines in Scotch, I don't think the problem is that he's British.
I think Kinsley - who I never said was a bad writer - is being wonderfully wry here, and Ezra... well, Ezra is earnest. It's a nice quality, but sometimes things can fly overhead.
Other than that, what's left to say about the latest book from an angry old drunk?
Posted by: weboy | May 11, 2007 5:59:17 PM
They are different in England? Well they do have George Galloway and didn't he cut the ground from under Hitchens who just snuck off down his rat hole. Hitchens is just part of the world of entertainment, so why on earth do you expect anything else of him. He lives by his wits, like theives, informers, shills for various frauds and the whole array of flotsom and jectsome that sort of floats around populated areas. Why are you guys fascinated by such an obvious creep? Emulation fantasies perhaps.
Posted by: garhane | May 11, 2007 6:59:39 PM
Thanks for the link, ts - it shows that Kinsley is criticizing himself for TNRism in the quote Ezra underlines.
Posted by: rilkefan | May 11, 2007 7:30:30 PM
Sanpete: greatly exaggerates the crimes involved
It would be hard to exaggerate starting a war on a pack of lies, having no plan for occupation and withdrawal, feeding more US bodies into a cause without a cause, ignoring the destruction and death of Iraq and Iraqi people, stubornly ignoring the signs of failure & reasons for withdrawing, & destruction of our military forces' capabilities, undercutting our civil liberties, unilaterally redesigning international treaties on torture, and being a general pig-headed fool.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 11, 2007 8:09:51 PM
I used to dismiss him as a rather articulate, witty part of the fringe, crazy-Noam-Chomsky-left
I should probably just let this go, but Noam Chomsky is anything but "crazy."
Posted by: Jason | May 11, 2007 8:10:39 PM
Jim, those are bad things, but Hitchens isn't the one who did them.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 11, 2007 9:27:25 PM
"I'd much prefer to read someone who writes carefully, more accurately and with restraint as Kinsley did than someone who flies off the handle as you did and greatly exaggerates the crimes involved."
You should check out NotEzraKlein.com. I hear it's da (the) bomb.
Posted by: Sam L. | May 12, 2007 12:30:21 AM
The "you" I referred to in that quote wasn't Ezra, in case there was some confusion.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 12, 2007 1:22:10 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.