Saturday, December 17, 2011

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)



I admired him and loathed him, and perhaps for no other major political commentator did I have such mixed feelings. When he wrote about the lies of organized religion and the crimes of Henry Kissinger and others, I applauded. When he promoted American militarism, including in Iraq, I recoiled in rage and disgust. Suffice it to say, he left his mark -- always engaging, always leaving me thinking. And he will be missed.

There are many things you can read on Hitch, obituaries and remembrances, at major media sites and around the blogosphere, but I recommend these posts at Driftglass (on the left) and Outside the Beltway (on the right), as well as these pieces by David Frum and Graydon Carter, and this one by David Corn.

For Hitch's greatest hits at Slate, where he was a columnist (and where I read him most often), see here.

And a must-read is this "in memoriam" by his brother Peter.

Hitch was productive almost right up to the very end, writing with his usual provocation. I remember a column he wrote less than a month ago for Slate -- on November 21, his second-to-last column there (the last coming a week later) -- on the ridiculous conservative belief in American exceptionalism. As usual, it was gorgeously written. And it ended with this:

The ancients taught us to fear "hubris," and the Bible teaches the sin of pride. I am always amazed that American conservatives are not more suspicious of self-proclaimed historical uniqueness. But proclaim it they do, as if trying to reassure themselves against the blasts of what looks like a very bad season.

And as if trying to reassure themselves that the American Empire isn't in fact collapsing, that America's time as global hegemon isn't in fact over. I often disagreed with him, often vehemently, but he was so very right about so very many things. (Go back and check out his "Fighting Words" columns at Slate, even just the ones from this year. You'd never know he was sick. In many of them, he was simply on fire.)

Allow me to close with this clip of Hitchens very casually (and very easily) taking down Ayn Rand and the cult of selfishness (which Driftglass also posts -- it's a classic). (There are many other clips of Hitch at YouTube. Go have a look. Enjoy.) Like him or not, the man had a sharp and deeply penetrating mind. Simply, he was one of the essential social, political, and literary commentators of our time.


Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

3 Comments:

  • Let's include Alexander Cockburn's take, posted on Counterpunch. Hitchens was always a reactionary, despite his infrequent forays into bashing the most disgusting of America's political monsters (Kissinger), as well as the highly over-appreciated religious icon Moms Teresa. CH's support of Bush's glorious Iraq adventure sullied Hitchen's mistique forever.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:09 PM  

  • Yes, he certainly was -- a reactionary of the left, if you will, who found common cause with the reactionary right. And you're right that he's forever tarnished by his support for the Iraq War. I tend to agree that there's such a thing, as he put it, as Islamofascism, but his solutions to the problem were too close to those of the neocons.

    By Blogger Michael J.W. Stickings, at 1:18 PM  

  • One of the essays in The Virtue of Selfishness is "Isn't Everyone Selfish?". It's by Nathaniel Branden, and he responds to the question in the negative. His response hinges on a distinction between subjective interests (what we want to do) and objective interests (what is factually favorable to us). While we act on our subjective interests, such actions are selfish only if they are in our objective interests.

    By Blogger Colin Day, at 9:48 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home