June 21, 2007
Christopher Hitchens
Last night I went to the London launch party for Christopher Hitchens’ new book, God is not Great – The Case Against Religion. The book seems to have hit a nerve. It is on the New York Times best-seller list – in fact it briefly got to number one.
Hitchens was my boss (or possibly just colleague, he’s not a very managerial type) in Washington in the early 1990s. We were both working for a now defunct British newspaper called The Sunday Correspondent – nicknamed “The Despondent” because of its irreversible downward spiral. I can still remember our first lunch. I would like to say that this is because of the sparkling nature of the conversation. In fact, it is because of the frightening amount that we drank. I staggered home afterwards and fell asleep for a few hours. At 5pm I got up and called Hitchens to discover that he had gone home and written a 2,000 word essay on WH Auden.
One of the reasons that Hitchens is so alarming is his ability to talk with apparent authority about an incredible range of topics – Middle Eastern politics, American foreign policy, English literature, European history, philosophy.
People find this intimidating and Hitchens is well aware of the fact. A friend of his once claimed to me that Hitchens’ main way of gaining the upper-hand in an argument was to establish what subjects his opponent knows nothing about, and then to talk exclusively about them.
He did something similar to me last night (not that we were arguing) – suddenly chucking in an obscure Latin phrase into our conversation. Then, when he saw the look of panic in my eyes, patiently translating.
For many years, Hitchens was a hero of the left. Recently, he has become a hero of the right because of his vociferous support of the Iraq war. He claims, of course, that he has been absolutely consistent in his underlying principles.
But the company he keeps has certainly changed a little. When I went to dinner with him in Washington earlier this year, I was surprised to find that the fellow guests included Grover Norquist, one of the Republican Party’s most ruthless and conservative strategists. Another guest was a prominent Iraqi politician. Then, a little after midnight, and for no apparent reason, Lord Skidelsky, the biographer of Keynes, wandered into the dining room. I didn’t hear him knock or anything, he just sort of appeared and sat down.
At this point the conversation veered off onto the subject of a biography of Oswald Mosley that Skidelsky had once written and what Isaiah Berlin had thought of it. Hitchens revealed another unusual rightwing friend, during the course of the conversation. He is a fan of some of the work of David Irving, a historian who recently served time in an Austrian prison for Holocaust denial.
Some of what Hitchens had to say on the topic struck me as slightly naïve. He looked at me gravely and said: “Irving came round here a couple of times, but I had to drop our social contacts after he made a shocking anti-semitic remark.” David Irving – an anti-semitic remark? Well, I never.
At about two in the morning, at the Hitchens-Skidelsky-Norquist do, I was beginning to flag. Thinking that perhaps my host might want to go to bed, I turned to him and said: “Christopher,” (I refuse to call him “Hitch”) … I’m falling asleep I better go.”
He looked at me with apparent fury and said: “Well, if that’s your efffing attitude.” Then, seeing that I was a little taken aback, he added: “No, I do understand.” But I could see he didn’t. The thought that anybody might not want to stay up all night, drinking Johnny Walker and discussing Oswald Mosley was all but incomprehensible.
His physical and intellectual stamina was rather humbling. It was even more humbling to discover a few months later that, amidst all this hard-living, Hitchens had found time to write a best-selling book.
Let’s remind ourselves that being intelligent, educated (and energetic) does not necessarily
equate to being good or being right.. As Edward De Bono said, having a good brain is
like having a car with a powerful engine. It doesn’t mean that you won’t wrap the car around the next available tree.
Christopher Hitchens’ support for the Iraq war is very much a case of him wrapping his powerful car around a big tree that he didn’t see coming towards him (and still doesn’t see it either!!).
Still, we got to be grateful for small mercies that you’re mates with Christopher Hitchens and not with his even more rightwing brother, Peter.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 21st, 2007 at 3:31 pm | Report this commentAlthough I would point out that the “even more right wing brother” actually opposed the Iraq war, on the grounds that it was a ridiculous leftwing war - ie fought to liberate foreigners rather than to defend a clearly-defined national interest.
Posted by: Gideon Rachman | June 21st, 2007 at 3:41 pm | Report this commentFor all his genius and stamina, Christopher Hitchens sounds to me like a very poor host. It’s nice to know that there is something he is not good at!
Posted by: peta seel | June 21st, 2007 at 5:45 pm | Report this commentIt is intersting to note that you infer that Christopher Hitchins is a superior “debater”. However, I recall watching a debate he had with George Galloway Re the Iraq war where he was convincely trounced, and rightly so!!
Posted by: sagz | June 21st, 2007 at 6:24 pm | Report this commentWhen I read the first paragraph in your post, I felt puzzled. How come a person like Christopher Hitchens come up with something against Religion while he is a noisy supporter of Mr Bush and Mr Blair holy war ( yes the same war that Mr Bush was inspired by God to commence )! Anyways, I’ve realised that I am not the only confused!
To make a long story short, I feel saddened that Mr Hitchens claims to be an atheist. His support for the killing of innocents in Iraq, the ethnic cleansing of the people of Palestine, and all his awkward theories about the Middle East lash him out –
Posted by: Mohd | June 22nd, 2007 at 7:55 am | Report this commentHi Mohd,
It’s not that tough to work out this kind of volte face and hypocrisy that happens to so many left intellectuals in later life. To paraphrase Woody Allen, they prefer to be rich, if only for financial reasons!
There is a much better living to be made if you espouse views that are attractive to the American conservative right.
Tony Blair is going to experience this bounty pretty soon. Who needs principles when there is serious money to be made?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 22nd, 2007 at 11:34 am | Report this commentI’m aware of only one debate Hitchens did with Galloway over the Iraq was. It was available on uTube. It’s not my impression that Hitchens lost!
Posted by: TDK | June 29th, 2007 at 11:21 pm | Report this commentthe trivial tenor of your blog (and the smug superiour tenor of the supporting comments)concerning hitchens in light of the serious nature of the book he has just written saddens me. As does the fact that you appear to embrace the consensus among media commentators generally that no one who supported the iraq war has the right to have their arguments respected. My views aside it seems merely objective to note that the blanket condemnation by anti war critics of those who dissent (ranging from hysterical lynch mob rants to toxic personal abuse to a quiet patronising dismissal - as in this article) combined with the blanket denial that anyone might do so on principle or with fair reason is the closest to soviet style propaganda I think I have ever witnessed in this country. I recently saw a CNN review of Blair´s record in office and low and behold they rehearsed his sad demise in UK life due to his being Bush´s ´poodle´. This was not presented as an opinion of some but as a fact. How this squares with the numberous occassions he has stood and declared his own personal convictions and reasoning as the basis of his decision on iraq i cannot understand. i am deeply serious when i say i find the lack of respect or acknowledgement for the reasoned arguments put forward by those who favoured the iraq invasion by those who opposed it to be the most disturbing example of media bias I can recall (for which reason I doubt I will see this proffered opinion in print).Ranting with righteous anger or discrditing opponents as people (poodle - right winger etc) rather than contend with their views used to be the preserve of the fascist right, to see leftist and liberal intellecuals resorting to the same is enough to make any thinking person despair.
Posted by: eocdotcom | July 2nd, 2007 at 1:28 am | Report this commentE
eocdotcom,
While I agree with your main point, which I would sum up as “anyone going against the media’s current view of the world is bound to get heavily criticized”, I think you must be having memory trouble to have the cheek to claim that “the blanket condemnation by anti war critics […]is the closest to soviet style propaganda I think I have ever witnessed in this country.”
Don’t you remember the media euphoria of 2002-2003? Virtually anyone who dared express doubts about the war was publicly lynched. (of course, the likes of Galloway probably made it easier for spin doctors to claim that being against the war was an old socialist, out of touch view of the world - and it worked!)
And yes I deplore the fact that it is now currently almost impossible to make a difference between the credible arguments against war and the mass hysteria - and I believe this is also what you are deploring about the reasons to go to war - some were clearly ludicrous, others more understandable.
And another subject where histeria is replacing reasoned debate: global warming. Hypothetically, if you were a respectable scientist (solar studies, ice formation, marine biology, ice cap etc… anything that can be affected by global warming) and that your study would point to an alternative explanation for global warming or anything going against the consensus. What would you do? Would you risk making your findings public and angered the greens? Your study might or might not be important - yet, it ought to be known as it might uncover some truths. And this is, to me, the core of the problem: when the media (on aggregate) excercises a bias in a particularly direction on a topic, it obscures the search for the truth. Which can be very damaging. Had a proper, reasoned debate occured with the help of the media in the pre-war period, the “right” questions might have been raised. The war might still have happened, but it possibly could have shed light on the inexistence of post-war plans or the lack of soldier to conduct occupation peacefully etc… No, instead, it was a “you’re with me or you’re my ennemy” debate to paraphrase Anakin Skywalker.
For those with a bit of time on their hands, having another look at Colin Powell and Dominique de Villepin’s speaches at the UN pre-war and the media coverage at the time is quite fascinating!
Posted by: A | July 2nd, 2007 at 3:55 pm | Report this comment“Ranting with righteous anger or discrditing [sic] opponents as people”
Funny, I thought that that was Hitch’s stock in trade!
Posted by: FGFM | July 3rd, 2007 at 3:42 pm | Report this commentGideon, can I ask if you mean that Hitchens actually invited Irving to dinner parties at his own home, or whether he merely hung around with him at social gatherings elsewhere that Hitchens regularly frequents? Obviously if Hitchens was actually inviting Irving to his own home for dinner, this is rather shocking to the least.
Posted by: MB | July 4th, 2007 at 4:31 pm | Report this commentOn the Irving question - this is not any great revelation. When Irving’s book on Goebbels was dropped by publishers, Hitchens made appeared a number of times in public (including charlie rose, which can still be found on YouTube I think) defending Irving’s right to be published in accordance with his contract, as well as our collective right to have easy access to the book. Because of his unique contacts and command of the German language, Hitch said he learned a good many things from Irving’s previous work.
To my knowledge, Hitchens only once invited Irving to his home, which he described as having gotten off to “a shaky start” - he also noted Irving had a propensity for self-destruction. Most of the time he spent at Hitchens’s home was used to discuss some new documents he found from the Eichmann that forced him to consider direct orders to annihilate the Jews did exist. The anti-semetic remark probably refers to when Irving left, escorted by Hitch’s wife and daughter. Irving commented favorably on the fair hair and blue eyes of their daughter, and “declaimed the followung doggerel about his own little girl…”
“I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape of Rastafarian”
The strangeness of the meeting lied squarely on the shoulders of Irving, not Hitchens, who had merely invited him out of curiousity. This, for the record, is not something that Hitchens has tried to hide. There is a detailed account from him on the manner of his support and meeting(s) with Irving which was originally published in the LA Times, and even selected for his book of essays “Love, Poverty, and War.” I don’t see what’s strange about that.
Posted by: Brough | July 17th, 2007 at 7:02 am | Report this commentIf anyone is interested in Isaiah Berlin, here is some relevant info.
Posted by: url from other place | July 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 pm | Report this comment