Stories

Why We Miss Christopher Hitchens

Mark Milke
December 21, 2011
This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Salman Rushdie Affair. After the publication of his 1988 novel The Satanic Verses, many Muslims accused Rushdie of blasphemy and the next year Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa ordering his death. Among Rushdie’s most vocal defenders was Christopher Hitchens, whose full-throated defense of free speech reminded us of what is at stake. After Hitchens’ untimely death in 2011, Mark Milke penned this tribute to Hitchens and why he mattered.
Stories

Why We Miss Christopher Hitchens

Mark Milke
December 21, 2011
This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Salman Rushdie Affair. After the publication of his 1988 novel The Satanic Verses, many Muslims accused Rushdie of blasphemy and the next year Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa ordering his death. Among Rushdie’s most vocal defenders was Christopher Hitchens, whose full-throated defense of free speech reminded us of what is at stake. After Hitchens’ untimely death in 2011, Mark Milke penned this tribute to Hitchens and why he mattered.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

In his 2002 book, Why Orwell Matters, Christopher Hitchens comments on George Orwell’s repudiation of his father’s “meal ticket,” the unthinking imperialism of the British Empire. While some saw such rejection as Oedipal, mused Hitchens, “It was very thoroughgoing, and for its time, very advanced. It also coloured everything he subsequently wrote.”

Not surprisingly, much the same could be said of Hitchens himself, the late 20th century and early 21st century’s best polemicist, who passed away just before Christmas at age 62. When Hitchens describes Orwell as “sensitive to intellectual hypocrisy and was well-tuned to pick up the invariably creepy noises which it gives off,” the same lucidity applies in exact measure to Hitchens. The British-born journalist who moved to the United States since 1981, and thus was in the centre of a superpower’s belly, was unafraid to take on all double-dealing comers.

That included Henry Kissinger ,who for all his attachment to political realism lacked any vision that could take America’s politicians beyond pure power politics vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. (That achievement instead belonged to Ronald Reagan. It was Reagan who combined realism with a belief that moral rhetoric, democracy promotion, and active support for dissidents could in fact push back the Soviet empire until it collapsed, as it eventually did.  That was not a belief, nor a strategy that Kissinger initially shared.)

Hitchens’ targets also included extreme fundamentalism (as well as attacks on faith itself). Hitchens understood the danger of taking an early belief and then spending one’s life trying to justify every ancient theological and narrative plank beneath it. Instead, he obviously preferred to let life and concern for humanity modify one’s initial views.

Hitchens’s willingness to revisit his own views thus displayed again this similarity to Orwell, the ability to change tack. Hitchens, a reflexive leftist earlier in life, a Trotskyite, turned on his colleagues at The Nation and elsewhere, especially when he supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq. For some, it was curious that the writer who pummeled Kissinger and others over Vietnam would support the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. It was not so perplexing when one understood that what drove Hitchens was an unflinching opposition to concentrated power, exemplified most obviously by authoritarians, tyrants and dictators.

In that sense, there was some irony that while Hitchens would have disliked the comparison to Kissinger, whose views and policies helped shape Richard Nixon’s strategies in Vietnam, Hitchens, by the end of his life, adopted some of Kissinger’s foreign policy realism. That included an acceptance of war as an occasional nasty means to a desired end (i.e., fewer problematic dictators). But such a willingness to attack narrowly-held power and its inevitable abuses was precisely why he could critique Islamic clerics who justified terror and the repression of women, hypocritical Catholic priests who preached charity and yet abused children, and tyrants who battered everyone.

His flaws:  Hitchens attack on every aspect of religious belief and life, this as if faith could only produce bad ends, was as dogmatic as those he targeted. His polemic against Mother Teresa was particularly odious and mistaken. To argue, as he did, that Mother Teresa was a parasite on poverty was unworthy of Hitchens’ intellect. It was a bizarre diatribe, something one would expect in an undergraduate student newspaper from a young writer trying to shock for that end alone.

On why he mattered: Hitchens displayed the great value of a classical education and a deep knowledge of history. Too many people trapped in their own small stream—most often journalists and politicians who too often become consumed by today’s events and thus make hasty, flawed interpretations of the same—thus miss the wider river of history and its grand lessons. Hitchens made no such mistake.

~

Mark Milke is the editorial board chair of Canada’s Journal of Ideas, C2C Journal.ca, where this article first appeared.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

What the Oscar-nominated Canadian Documentary Sugarcane Gets Wrong, and Why

The secret to every good magic trick, Michael Caine’s character explains in the 2006 movie The Prestige, is a willing audience. “You want to be fooled,” he says. Anyone watching the Oscar-nominated documentary film Sugarcane could find themselves slipping into a similar act of self-deception. Focused on a residential school in northern B.C., the Canadian-made Sugarcane withholds key facts, arranges other evidence in confusing ways and encourages viewers – already primed to think the worst of residential schools – to reach unfounded conclusions about what they’re actually seeing. Even professional movie critics have been fooled. Documentary filmmaker Michelle Stirling pulls back the curtain on the dark magic behind Sugarcane.

The Dangerous Absurdity of Canada’s “Nation-to-Nation” Treaty with Manitoba Métis Federation Inc.

When the Métis were included in Canada’s 1982 Constitution as “aboriginal peoples”, some members complained that they’d been handed an “empty box” compared to the ample rights and treaties offered to Indian and Inuit people. Since then, however, Canada’s court system has been hard at work filling up that box. Now, with the signing of a “nation-to-nation” treaty late last year, Manitoba Métis have a box that’s positively overflowing with new rights, powers and federal cash. Peter Best explores how Canada came to recognize a fractious, landless, fully-assimilated, colonial-era group – a group that is actually represented by a corporation – as a nation with an inherent right to self-government, as well as the deeply problematic consequences of this decision.

From Brutalism to Beauty: The Case for Returning to Traditional Architecture

Buildings and other public structures, the ancient Roman architectural master Vitruvius wrote, need to be sturdy and long-lasting, must efficiently fulfill the uses and serve the users for which they are intended – and should be pleasing to the eye. Today’s architecture, writes Michael Bonner, is none of these things. In most cases, it’s the opposite – and that is usually by intention, as “starchitects” foist awful designs on an increasingly unwilling public. Thankfully, writes Bonner, there are glimmerings of a way back towards public architecture that not only does its job but reflects timeless principles of form, function, quality and beauty.

More from this author

Not So Beautiful Minds: Conspiracy Theories from JFK to Oliver Stone and Donald Trump

Shocking events that plunge a country into chaos or destroy a beloved leader are hard for anyone to process. The evil done is so towering it bends the human psyche to accept that the evildoer is utterly banal, a loner walking in ordinary shoes. The cause simply must befit the outcome; thus can a conspiracy theory be hatched. At other times, the cold hope of political or financial gain or simple mischief might be the source. There certainly is no shortage of conspiracy theories. Mark Milke revisits one of history’s most famous political assassinations and the conspiracy theories it spawned to illuminate the ongoing danger this toxic tendency poses to us all.

Picture of Thomas Hobbes frontispiece of Leviathan. A renowned pieceof political work on liberty

Future of Conservatism Series, Part VII: Memo to Politicians: We’re Not Your Pet Projects

Canadian conservatives have most of the summer to ruminate on what they want their federal party to become – as embodied by their soon-to-be elected leader, anyway. Acceptability, likability and winnability will be key criteria. Above all, however, should be crafting and advancing a compelling policy alternative to today’s managerial liberalism, which has been inflated by the pandemic almost beyond recognition. Mark Milke offers a forceful rebuttal against the Conservative “alternative” comprising little more than a massaged form of top-down management.

Leaders_debate_2019_canada_diversity_bias_free_speech_liberal_conservative

So Much for Diversity: The Monochromatic Moderators of Monday’s Debate

Canada is a big, diverse country by virtually any measure, from our no-longer-so-sparse population to our epic geography to the ethnic makeup of our people. Diverse in every way, it seems, except in our elites’ aggressively progressive official-think. Consistent with this is the otherwise bizarre decision to have Monday’s federal leaders’ debate hosted by five decidedly similar female journalists. Mark Milke briefly profiles the five and, more important, advances a positive alternative: five distinguished women diverse in background, hometown and, above all, thought.

Reading Progress

Share This Story by Mark Milke

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.