Merged Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)

[RandFan]

I'm not saying I have no respect for him getting things very wrong. I am saying, merely, that he got things very wrong. I am also saying that despite being wrong he was savage in his condemnation of those who turned out to be right. What do you disagree with about that?

Did he get things "very wrong"? I don't know. I'm willing to entertain that he did. It's not at all a black and white issue. Regarding his savage condemnation, don't care and I'm not sure why that's important.

What I don't know is his motivation. He sued Bush for war crimes. He condemned Cheney et al. His conscience would not put up with extraordinary rendition or torture.

Unlike FDR, unlike Lincoln, men I can forgive, I don't find Hitchens politically expedient. The problem for me is that at best people have shown Hitchens to be principled in his stand against Iraq. If you could show where he was a war profiteer (Cheney) or that his stance was political expediency (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) or if you could show that he was fundamentally corrupt in his support of the war I would consider condemning him.

It's the lack of that, the silence of that, that leaves me to not move Hitchens into the column of FDR and Lincoln, and I forgave them.

 

[qayak]

But according to his critics he thought his opponents were less of persons for holding positions counter to his.

Since when do we listen to a man's critics to get his position on something? Shouldn't we look to him for his opinion? He wrote and spoke about his position on numerous occasions.

Hitchens had a great distaste for totalitarian rulers which is why he was all for Saddam Hussein being taken out.

 

[qayak]

I like what Conservapedia had to say about Hitchens' death:Atheism and Hitchens' cancer

The possiblity that Hitchens' unfortunate death from cancer could have been directly or indirectly influenced by his atheism remains open. In the indirect sense, it is known that the atheistic philosophy of the objective meaninglessness of life correlates with vices and mental unwellness. Atheists and secular Americans are known to have higher rates of drug abuse (which in a broad sense could include smoking and drinking as well), and regular churchgoers are known to have much lower rates of mental illness and depression. The depression that sometimes persists alongside atheism could have conceivably influenced him to use harmful matericalistic pleasures like tobacco and alcohol as a coping mechanism, since an avowed atheist like Hitchens would not decide to seek spiritual health, attend a Christian church or look for answers in the Bible. This provides reason to speculate that atheism influenced Hitchens' bad habits, which lead to his cancer and death.
Whether Hichens' cancer death was influenced in any direct sense remains more uncertain. While a Christian should not speak directly for God, the Bible does show that, in specific instances, God has been known to punish sinners and the unrepentant with disease.[7] The Bible has also made it clear that those who wish evil on others deserve no better themselves, and as Hitchens praised the sad and gruesome death of Rev. Jerry Falwell, the possibility of divine retribution remains as well depending on a Christians interpretation of God's word and actions.
On the flip side, God has been shown to bestow mercy on those who are sick and seek His help. The many stories of Jesus healing the blind, crippled, and ill are the first examples. Even during today's times, there have been claims of modern day miracles as well, such as the possible "curing" of a person's cancer by a Roman Catholic priest, through the power of prayer - something which Hitchens likely rejected to his deathbed. Again it would be presumptuous for a Christian to speak directly on God's behalf, as is Hitchen's most obvious eternal fate according to the Bible (for only God knows for a fact whether or not he repented on his deathbead) nevertheless the possibilities are a good topic of discussion among Christians and non-Christians alike.

 

[angrysoba]

Did he get things "very wrong"? I don't know. I'm willing to entertain that he did. It's not at all a black and white issue. Regarding his savage condemnation, don't care and I'm not sure why that's important.

What I don't know is his motivation. He sued Bush for war crimes. He condemned Cheney et al. His conscience would not put up with extraordinary rendition or torture.

Unlike FDR, unlike Lincoln, men I can forgive, I don't find Hitchens politically expedient. The problem for me is that at best people have shown Hitchens to be principled in his stand against Iraq. If you could show where he was a war profiteer (Cheney) or that his stance was political expediency (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) or if you could show that he was fundamentally corrupt in his support of the war I would consider condemning him.

It's the lack of that, the silence of that, that leaves me to not move Hitchens into the column of FDR and Lincoln, and I forgave them.

He sued Bush for war crimes? When did that happen?

He condemned Cheney? Again, I am drawing a blank on this too.

Not sure what FDR and Lincoln have to do with things here.

Not sure where I said he was a war profiteer, either.

Not sure where I said his stance was political expediency.

 

[Craig B]

Since when do we listen to a man's critics to get his position on something? Shouldn't we look to him for his opinion? He wrote and spoke about his position on numerous occasions.

Hitchens had a great distaste for totalitarian rulers which is why he was all for Saddam Hussein being taken out.

Surely to understand a thinker you must listen to her or his critics, as well as to the person's own statements.

 

[RandFan]

He sued Bush for war crimes? When did that happen?

He condemned Cheney? Again, I am drawing a blank on this too.

He filed as a plaintiff a lawsuit against Bush for his warrantless wiretapping and he criticized Bush et al for their crimes of killing civilians, torture, etc. I misspoke about the nature of the lawsuit. I apologize.

Hitchens.

Although Hitchens defends Bush’s post-September 11 foreign policy, he has criticized the actions and alleged killings of Iraqis by U.S. troops in Abu Ghraib and Haditha, and the U.S. government's use of waterboarding, which he unhesitatingly deemed as torture after being invited by Vanity Fair to voluntarily undergo it.[70][71] In January 2006, Hitchens joined with four other individuals and four organizations, including the ACLU and Greenpeace, as plaintiffs in a lawsuit, ACLU v. NSA, challenging Bush's warrantless domestic spying program; the lawsuit was filed by the ACLU.[72]

Not sure what FDR and Lincoln have to do with things here.

Both FDR and Lincoln trampled the constitution. What they did was wrong. Perhaps heinous enough to earn our permanent contempt. Like Hitchens, I choose to look at their contributions to society in the aggregate. The actions of Linconln and FDR cannot mitigate or excuse any wrong doing of Hitchens, however, I have to consider my moral consistency when judging Hitchens. Do I treat Hitchens differently or the same?

Not sure where I said he was a war profiteer, either.

Not sure where I said his stance was political expediency.

I never made any positive claims about what you claimed. I'm simply trying to explain the problems I have with judging Hitchens. As I said, what were his motivations? Did he defend the criminality of Bush et al? Did he excuse the excesses of torture, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, trampling on the constitution?

If he was insincere, a profiteer, war monger for the advancement of American Imperialism in the way I believe Bush and company were then I would hasten to your side. But he wasn't that. He wasn't cozy with the Bush crowd or the far right. He wasn't an apologist for the excesses of the Bush admin. On the contrary, he criticized and even challenged Bush legally.

I'll say it again, it's the silence and lack of depth of his advocacy that keep me from making a determination that he falls on this issue. Assuming Hitchens' wrong, and I don't know for a fact that he is but I'm on that side at the moment, that isn't enough for me to condemn him.

 

[Roadtoad]

I like what Conservapedia had to say about Hitchens' death:Atheism and Hitchens' cancer

Forget the woo side of your quote, just the smug condescension was offensive enough. Why the hell ANYONE would seemingly take pleasure in the misery of another person is repulsive.

 

[qayak]

I used the term "defected" in quotation marks, not because I endorse the idea that he "defected from the left" or because I believe ""left" = not supporting the war in Iraq" but because both he and "the Left" made a big deal of their disagreement. He left the Nation, because he believed the Nation had left him and he also believed that the Iraqi left were on his side.

I don't care so much for internecine squabbles among various groups of people who all claim to be on the left - as they all did at the time - but if you are concerned about "reasoned people" not accepting different opinions then it is certainly Hitchens who was most at fault for believing that there was no acceptable alternative to his views on Iraq.

As for "Hitchens felt that the result in Iraq was worth the cost" I hope for his sake that he had no idea of the cost before he started his campaign of Bush support. I believe that he didn't and I believe that it probably alarmed him at how much death and destruction was caused not to mention the sickening corruption of the war profiteers and the descent into sectarian war that the US government had huge difficulty stifling. There are even hints in his writing that he vastly underestimated the death toll. He first of all declared, within a few months of the Iraq War beginning, that it was all over and that he was now ready to extend his hand in friendship towards the left and forgive them. Then, as things got worse, he repeatedly tried to pooh-pooh the estimates of Iraqi dead.

I'm not saying I have no respect for him getting things very wrong. I am saying, merely, that he got things very wrong. I am also saying that despite being wrong he was savage in his condemnation of those who turned out to be right. What do you disagree with about that?

No disagreement here. I don't excuse Hitchens' stand on Iraq. The only thing I don't get is how that is the decider in his life. Yeah, he got that wrong but he got a lot of other things right.

I can even understand his stance on Iraq in the beginning. I think he made the same mistake a lot of people made about Saddam Hussein. He felt that Saddam was an evil despot that needed to be removed. My view is that Saddam was what he needed to be in order to control Iraq and all its factions. I think the violence that took place during the American occupation illustrates this point. I also think there is going to be a long and bloody civil war until another despot takes charge. I think that person will by necessity be worse than Saddam.

And not to sweep it under the table. Hitchens was wrong but his support of the invasion goes along with many of his other political beliefs. He believed, as I do, that most of the progress in the world has been made by those countries conquered/controlled by the English speaking world. India, Australia, US, Canada, etc. Hard to argue when you look at the history of the areas conquered by other countries, Spain for example. The difference is, I don't think it is any reason for English speaking countries to invade others.

 

[zooterkin]

I like what Conservapedia had to say about Hitchens' death:Atheism and Hitchens' cancer

What definition of 'like' are you using?

 

[qayak]

Forget the woo side of your quote, just the smug condescension was offensive enough. Why the hell ANYONE would seemingly take pleasure in the misery of another person is repulsive.

I loved it! It was like stepping into an episode of The Twilight Zone.

 

[Roadtoad]

I loved it! It was like stepping into an episode of The Twilight Zone.

Enjoy.

 

[qayak]

What definition of 'like' are you using?

"Like" in the sense that it made me actually belly laugh and read the quote to my wife whose response was, "How stupid can people be?" And she's never read Hitchens.

 

[qayak]

Enjoy.

Oh, come on! Hitch pulled no punches in the obituaries he wrote and he certainly wouldn't want anyone to pull punches in his. Look at what he wrote about Falwell.

I think Hitch would agree with me on this one.

 

[RandFan]

Oh, come on! Hitch pulled no punches in the obituaries he wrote and he certainly wouldn't want anyone to pull punches in his. Look at what he wrote about Falwell.

Except Hitchens was sincere and principled. I don't think he would give a damn about fair criticism. I do think he bristle at the notion that he deserved the same contempt as a charlatan like Falwell. Disagree with him, dislike him, but don't suppose that Hitchens held his contemporaries and admirers in contempt for swallowing whole demonstrable false hoods.

 

[qayak]

Except Hitchens was sincere and principled. I don't think he would give a damn about fair criticism. I do think he bristle at the notion that he deserved the same contempt as a charlatan like Falwell. Disagree with him, dislike him, but don't suppose that Hitchens held his contemporaries and admirers in contempt for swallowing whole demonstrable false hoods.

Do you think Hitchens didn't think this was going to happen? Didn't he know that his critics were not always honest?

Personally, I think Conservapedia made itself look much sillier than it did Hitchens.

However, there were also honest critics who went after him for his stance on the Iraq war. When you read the honest ones, he doesn't seem nearly as bad. Only that he backed an unpopular foreign policy.

I hadn't heard him pooh-pooh the number of dead and that doesn't really seem his style. He also changed his stance on waterboarding and torture.

 

[RandFan]

Do you think Hitchens didn't think this was going to happen? Didn't he know that his critics were not always honest?

Personally, I think Conservapedia made itself look much sillier than it did Hitchens.

However, there were also honest critics who went after him for his stance on the Iraq war. When you read the honest ones, he doesn't seem nearly as bad. Only that he backed an unpopular foreign policy.

I hadn't heard him pooh-pooh the number of dead and that doesn't really seem his style. He also changed his stance on waterboarding and torture.

Agreed.

 

[angrysoba]

He filed as a plaintiff a lawsuit against Bush for his warrantless wiretapping and he criticized Bush et al for their crimes of killing civilians, torture, etc. I misspoke about the nature of the lawsuit. I apologize.

Both FDR and Lincoln trampled the constitution. What they did was wrong. Perhaps heinous enough to earn our permanent contempt. Like Hitchens, I choose to look at their contributions to society in the aggregate. The actions of Linconln and FDR cannot mitigate or excuse any wrong doing of Hitchens, however, I have to consider my moral consistency when judging Hitchens. Do I treat Hitchens differently or the same?

I never made any positive claims about what you claimed. I'm simply trying to explain the problems I have with judging Hitchens. As I said, what were his motivations? Did he defend the criminality of Bush et al? Did he excuse the excesses of torture, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, trampling on the constitution?

If he was insincere, a profiteer, war monger for the advancement of American Imperialism in the way I believe Bush and company were then I would hasten to your side. But he wasn't that. He wasn't cozy with the Bush crowd or the far right. He wasn't an apologist for the excesses of the Bush admin. On the contrary, he criticized and even challenged Bush legally.

I'll say it again, it's the silence and lack of depth of his advocacy that keep me from making a determination that he falls on this issue. Assuming Hitchens' wrong, and I don't know for a fact that he is but I'm on that side at the moment, that isn't enough for me to condemn him.

Randfan, I am certain, of course, that Hitchens wasn't for Abu Graibh or Haditha. It would be truly remarkable if he was given that nobody in Bush's Administration that I am aware of has gone on record about either thing being a good thing.

The rest is really not relevant as we are talking about Hitchens' stance on Iraq. For the record, I think I have already given my opinion about his motivation for supporting the war in Iraq. I think he was motivated by a desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein and from genuine solidarity with the Kurds.

No disagreement here. I don't excuse Hitchens' stand on Iraq. The only thing I don't get is how that is the decider in his life. Yeah, he got that wrong but he got a lot of other things right.

I can even understand his stance on Iraq in the beginning. I think he made the same mistake a lot of people made about Saddam Hussein. He felt that Saddam was an evil despot that needed to be removed. My view is that Saddam was what he needed to be in order to control Iraq and all its factions. I think the violence that took place during the American occupation illustrates this point. I also think there is going to be a long and bloody civil war until another despot takes charge. I think that person will by necessity be worse than Saddam.

And not to sweep it under the table. Hitchens was wrong but his support of the invasion goes along with many of his other political beliefs. He believed, as I do, that most of the progress in the world has been made by those countries conquered/controlled by the English speaking world. India, Australia, US, Canada, etc. Hard to argue when you look at the history of the areas conquered by other countries, Spain for example. The difference is, I don't think it is any reason for English speaking countries to invade others.

From "I disagree" to "No disagreement there"! I should point out that your first response was to the tail-end post of a discussion which began with somebody asking about Hitchens' stance on the Iraq War. If you look upthread a little bit you will see that I wasn't trying to sum Hitchens up purely on his Iraq War record but purely trying to sum his Iraq War record up according to, well... his Iraq War record. In fact, there may be more to say on that as it wasn't pretty, in my opinion, even if he started from good intentions. I think he found himself having to support or argue for things they didn't expect to happen and because I think he is humane at heart, I think he became depressed and bothered by what he had caused. Some of the blustering language that he used at the time and the tortuous arguments had the impression of being more for his own benefit than anyone else's.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan, I am certain, of course, that Hitchens wasn't for Abu Graibh or Haditha. It would be truly remarkable if he was given that nobody in Bush's Administration that I am aware of has gone on record about either thing being a good thing.

I can't parse this. Not certain as to your point. However, many have defended the Patriot act, warrentless wiretapping, rendition, etc.. Hitchens didn't and that is important.

The rest is really not relevant as we are talking about Hitchens' stance on Iraq. For the record, I think I have already given my opinion about his motivation for supporting the war in Iraq. I think he was motivated by a desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein and from genuine solidarity with the Kurds.

The thread is about Hitchens and you said:

I'm not saying I have no respect for him getting things very wrong. I am saying, merely, that he got things very wrong. I am also saying that despite being wrong he was savage in his condemnation of those who turned out to be right.

I'm trying to make a point. So what? I'll repeat myself.

Did he get things "very wrong"? I don't know. I'm willing to entertain that he did. It's not at all a black and white issue. Regarding his savage condemnation, don't care and I'm not sure why that's important.

In the grand scheme of things I'm not sure why it is particuraly important that he was wrong on Iraq. It's important to be accurate but I don't think that story should be written yet. I'm willing to concede the point for sake of discussion but I'm still not sure what it matters in the grand scheme of things. If you just want to make certain that your opinion of the matter is accurate then that's fine. I'll move on.

 

[RandFan]

From "I disagree" to "No disagreement there"! I should point out that your first response was to the tail-end post of a discussion which began with somebody asking about Hitchens' stance on the Iraq War. If you look upthread a little bit you will see that I wasn't trying to sum Hitchens up purely on his Iraq War record but purely trying to sum his Iraq War record up according to, well... his Iraq War record.

Which is cool

In fact, there may be more to say on that as it wasn't pretty, in my opinion, even if he started from good intentions. I think he found himself having to support or argue for things they didn't expect to happen and because I think he is humane at heart, I think he became depressed and bothered by what he had caused. Some of the blustering language that he used at the time and the tortuous arguments had the impression of being more for his own benefit than anyone else's.

This I would have some contention with. I suspect that your analysis is due in part to your bias. You could be right but I doubt he was depressed about his stance. But it's worth considering. His position was a sincere one. Wrong? I think he likely was. The rest? Not so much.

 

[angrysoba]

I can't parse this. Not certain as to your point. However, many have defended the Patriot act, warrentless wiretapping, rendition, etc.. Hitchens didn't and that is important.

I don't know what Hitchens said about the Patriot Act, actually. If he even said anything at all then I have either forgotten or I am unaware of it.

As it happens, for non-Americans like myself, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretappings and "trampling on" the American constitution are of quite minor interest.

I do remember him saying a couple of times about being a "named plaintiff" in the wiretappings thingy. I think he often said this when it was charged that he had gone along with Bush's rough and ready approach to the constitution.

On the Patriot Act, though, I have no idea. Similarly he showed little to no interest in Guantanamo Bay although he did mention a few times that some who had been released from Guantanamo Bay had gone back to wage jihad. It certainly left me with the impression that it is better to be safe than sorry when it comes to incarcerating some of those in Guantanamo Bay without charge.

The thread is about Hitchens and you said:

Well, okay then. But I was talking mostly about his Iraq War thing in response to a request about that. I think it is perfectly acceptable to talk about only one aspect without having everything else discussed at the same time. In fact, I think it makes it easier to do so. If I asked you about his stance on Mother Teresa and you told me about his stance on Mother Teresa and I then asked you what that has to do with the Iraq War then you would probably tell me that it doesn't have anything to do with the Iraq War.

In the grand scheme of things I'm not sure why it is particuraly important that he was wrong on Iraq. It's important to be accurate but I don't think that story should be written yet. I'm willing to concede the point for sake of discussion but I'm still not sure what it matters in the grand scheme of things. If you just want to make certain that your opinion of the matter is accurate then that's fine. I'll move on.

Well, I suppose you could tell me what the grand scheme of things consists of. It is likely that you are far more interested in other aspects of Hitchens than the Iraq War. I know that he became far more famous and popular in his late "New Atheist" phase but he was well-known before that for his politics.

Anyway, would you rather discuss something else now that we have (hopefully) got the Iraq War thing out of the way?