lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Christopher Hitchens: The Last Nonpartisan Journalist

2010-08-26
By
Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens

Presuming the news coming out of the oncologist’s office is as dire as Christopher Hitchens appears to say it is, we may not just lose a voice as unpredictable as it is erudite, but something perhaps even more precious. Isn’t Hitchens pretty much the last journalist/pundit/commentator/critic left in America whose work appears across the political spectrum? If there is another writer whose work can still be found (and welcomed) in such ideologically opposed publications as Slate, the Weekly Standard, the Atlantic Monthly, City Journal, Vanity Fair, the Wall Street Journal, etc., I can’t think of one. Nor can I think of anyone who has so often genially weaved his way from interviews with conservatives like Dennis Miller and Hugh Hewitt to liberals like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, not to mention all points in between.

Which may be one reason why news of his cancer has touched so many people: He is one of the few journalists in the country who still seem willing to talk to pretty much anyone. In particular, his well-advertised position as an atheist who has happily spent hours arguing his case with countless religious Americans (true, he likes the sound of his own voice and needs to sell books, but still …) in the full knowledge that he is doing so in an overwhelmingly religious country has made this very English-sounding American who only recently became a citizen appear more truly American than most of his fellow scribes. Could it be that that, as well as the horrible misfortune of the illness itself, is what people are mourning? Are they mourning the possible death of a type, knowing that once he is gone there will be no one to replace him, no one left who is able to venture forth from his assigned political box? (Or worse: no one who wants to.)

The novelist Alan Furst, who writes noir-ish historical thrillers set in the Europe of World War II, once told me how, beginning in the 1930s, more and more people, particularly intellectuals, were dragged, often unwillingly, into politics. Neutrality was no longer an option: They had to choose sides, often holding their noses as they did so. With barely a shot fired, Americans seem to be heading in the same direction. Almost every topic divides and inflames us, and as a consequence we become ever more rooted in our niches and divisions. One person turns to the Huffington Post, another to a site like this one. And there is almost no connection between the two whatsoever.

No doubt there is a quality of slipperiness and evasion in Hitchens, both as a person and as a writer, that has recently made him suited to the role of the man who talks to one and all, right, left, and center. (And if there is someone he won’t actually talk to in the normal sense, then he’ll publicly debate them.) It’s an odd paradox that such a deeply politicized man, moreover one known for his vituperative and sometimes nasty wit, may be the only pundit remaining who seems willing to put political differences aside even while talking politics. One day he’s on assignment in Lebanon with a patriotic war blogger like PJM’s own Michael Totten, the next day he’s with a swank liberal Manhattanite like Graydon Carter in the designer suites of Condé Nast.

Admittedly, there are other journalists, writers, and pundits who would surely be eager to talk to more varied audiences. But for the most part, they simply aren’t invited. (Or if they are, they’re heckled and booed — especially by the left — the sort of behavior Hitchens once engaged in himself, as he admits in his memoir.) Hitchens has managed to escape this trap, in part because of his foreignness, personal charm, and obvious brilliance, but also because even if the left has disavowed him on some issues, it still values his views on others. Thus he has been inoculated from all-out assault. Other journalists — Mark Steyn would be a good example — are not so fortunate.

Time may well prove Hitchens overrated as a writer, but that’s true of almost everyone who makes a living with a pen. (And he does in fact still write with a pen.) In the here and now, it is “Hitch” — a man who loves argument for argument’s sake — who has reminded Americans that they used to be much more open to each others’ opinions, and more willing to forgive or reason with those they disagreed with, than they are today. In an odd twist, he seems to have become more American as Americans themselves have become less so. Those who rue this state of affairs are among those who most regret his current difficulties.

Brendan Bernhard writes on culture, politics and sports. He is a Contributing Editor to the New York Sun, where he was the television critic from 2006-08, and a former staff writer at LA Weekly.

Tags: , ,

1,104 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • C. Neron

    Those who say Christopher Hitchens will cop out in the end and find God know nothing of atheists or Hitch. Of course, after his death there will be rumors of deathbed conversions, just as there always are when prominent atheists die — Darwin, Sagan — but it will be hogwash, as it always is. Believers just can’t quite seem to grasp that we atheists aren’t missing anything.

  • Alphabeta #2987

    Sorry for the double post!

  • Alphabeta #2987

    I agree with S. Baker. Like most men who come face to face with their own mortality Hitchens will die seeking God. I’d go further: those who are familiar with the spiritual paths intelligent men take will tell you that he and his cronies Dawkins, Harris and Dennett have actually been doing this for years. These men have done a tremendous service to God by dismantling popular religious delusions – most of which have nothing to do with God – and this has made the journey of discovery a whole lot easier for those who are surrounded by them. Their gifts of invective, coupled with YouTube, have enabled millions around the world to shed layers of ignorance about religious practices and doctrines and receive the truth about God more clearly.

    But these men are atheists, I hear you say. All journeys towards God begin with disbelief so we’re all atheists at some point or another. Some men activate just their minds and remain atheists, others activate their hearts as well as their minds and become children of God. A suspension of disbelief is necessary to activate the heart, just as it is to enable ‘black box’ learning at college. Advancement towards an understanding of God, as it is with Chemistry, Economics or Math, depends on when we declare that what we know about God is enough. Professional atheists seem to have made this declaration with only a rudimentary understanding of theology.

    The inner man’s journey is also influenced by his environment and the people that feed him. Hitchens, unfortunately, has made his career as a ‘notable atheist’ and has developed a reputation as a formidable talk show opponent on the strength and consistency of his arguments. Neither his career nor reputation has been made on his understanding of God. Because of this deficiency he has captured only the shallow imagination and meaningless passions of the godless mob. These people don’t carry the water or waybread necessary to feed him so instead of advancing his understanding, his public declarations on their behalf has trapped him in ignorance. This would lead anyone to spiritual stagnation, then to emotional deadlock, then to poor nutrition and substance abuse. Ill-health is inevitable. I have no doubt that Hitchens’ esophageal cancer has as much to do with spiritual malnutrition as tobacco and gin.

    The mob will care little for his spiritual health and well-being as his health declines. They’ll keep him in the cage they built for him with their fetishism, shallow flattery and false idolatry. They’ll want to hear the same old shallow arguments – his accent, his clever invective, his wit and his public demolishing of the Rabbi on the barbarity of circumcision. When he dies, they’ll be too busy watching The Bieber grow his first pubic hair to care. Even his staunchest supporters will remain only until the next godless intellectual raises his voice.

    Hitchens will have the chance to examine his beliefs in relative peace as his illness progresses. If this happens, I’d not be surprised in the slightest if he realises that God was behind him all along.

  • Alphabeta #2987

    I agree with S. Baker – like most men who come face to face with their own impending mortality Hitchens will die seeking God. However, those familiar with the spiritual paths of men will tell you that he and his cronies Messrs Dawkins, Harris and Dennett have actually been doing this for years. They’ve done a tremendous service to God by dismantling popular religious delusions – which have nothing to do with God – and have made the journey a whole lot easier for those who struggle with them. Their gifts of invective, with the ubiquitous presence of YouTube, have enabled millions around the world to shed layers of ignorance about religious practices and doctrines and receive more clearly the truth about God.

    But these men are atheists, I hear you say. Well, I say that all journeys towards God begin with disbelief, so we’re all atheists at some point or another. Hitchens et al. are no different. Some men activate just their minds and remain atheists for life, others activate their hearts as well and become children of God. A suspension of disbelief is necessary to enable the heart, just as it is in ‘black box’ academic learning. Advancement towards an understanding of God, as it is with Chemistry, Economics or Math, depends on how soon we say “I’m satisfied that what I know is enough”.

    The inner man’s journey is also influenced by his environment and the people that feed him. Unfortunately, Hitchens, since his career as a ‘notable athist’ and reputation as a formidable talk show opponent has been forged on the strength and consistency of his arguments and not on his understanding of God, has captured the shallow imagination and meaningless passions of the godless mob. The godless mob doesn’t carry water or waybread so instead of advancing his understanding they’ve actually arrested it. Spiritual stagnation leads to emotional deadlock, which leads to poor nutrition and substance abuse, which leads to ill-health. I have no doubt that Hitchens’ esophageal cancer has as much to do with his spiritual incarceration by we, the people, as tobacco and gin.

    The mob cares little for the health and well-being of the inner Hitchens either way. His audience will scatter quickly as his health declines. They’ll keep him in the cage they built for him with their fetishism, shallow flattery and false idolatry. They’ll want to hear his accent, his clever invective, his wit and his demolishment of the Rabbi on the barbarity of circumcision. But they’ll do this only until the next Sideshow Bob raises his voice then his memory will be banished to the wikiwebs.

    When the pressure is taken off him, which I hope will happen before his illness advances too far, Hitchens will have the chance to examine his beliefs in relative peace. If he does, I’m certain he’ll find God was there all along urging him on. Unfortunately, the godless mob will be too busy watching Lady Gaga’s addadicktomy and The Bieber grow his first pubic hair to care.

  • Christian J.

    Liberals are definitely more confused than Cons as they have no semblance of limits, no guidelines or zero limitations to their nuerotic behaviour. Liberalism as with feminism have zero tolerance for any opposing view even thought they think they generate discussion, it is normally only amongst their own..

    It’s their version of free speech..

  • Christian J.

    Hitchens had the temerity to state to a feminist interviewer on ABC Australia that any women in a marriage or partnership should not have to work if she did not want to and should be allowed to stay at home if she so wishes..

    The interviewer was aghast, she was beside herself. It will ofcourse take him off the socialist’s/feminist/marxist list of preferred authors ofcourse..

    Make of it as you will..

  • S Baker

    Hitchens is living in the past. Libs and progs don’t wish to debate with the opposition–to them, debate is an ad hominem attack, name-calling, and swearing at any who oppose their goal of domination and suppression of free speech. Their goals require them to use the force of government to impose their view of the world on a free people. This is not debate; this is tyranny and “conservatives” will not stand by and be herded into the box of political correctness. Historically, this approach to “debate” has been used by tyrants of every stripe and color.

    Hitchens will not die an atheist. It is uniquely a part of human nature to believe in God. Animals (lower life forms) do not believe in any god nor are they capable of pondering such. Dying is part of living and as Hitchens uses his intellectual powers to drink and smoke himself to death, he will ask God the question; Are You there?

  • Jabberwocky

    Yes, debate, argue, talk, yell. We need this. This is the path to truth, no matter how much it winds chaotically through a jungle of discord, uphill the whole way, to the summit of enlightenment, the goal is the same for all sides of the debate. We must not be afraid to offend each other if we are ever going to understand each other.

  • steven deluca

    One of the best articles I have read in a long time. I will share it with my conservative friends who seem more “tolerant” of liberals than my liberal friends are of convervatives, or Christians, or white men. And I will share it with my liberal friends asking them to “get it” in ways that only one or two will.

    Repeating what I have heard. “For liberals, diversity is looking different but thinking the same.” No, not all liberals but too many of them seem that way and I STILL consider myself in the middle while leaning a little left. I find conservatives more humorous and liberals too ready to assume there is no reason to listen to other views. ( “Hey, my hippie parents and left college professors thought ‘it’ was good enough for them so I think that should be good enough for you and that should end the discussion right there.” That’s the feeling I get when I hear what many liberals share.

    SD







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search