Coloradolib on Christopher Hitchens on Thomas Jefferson

I recently finished Christopher Hitchens' biography of Thomas Jefferson. I'd intended to write a lengthy review. But the book doesn't merit it.

Hitchens' Jefferson is an inconsistent and private man who approached greatness only when flouting the Constitution and Congress. The book harps on our third President's fondness for the French and his conflicting views on slavery. But Hitchens celebrates Jefferson's stunning writings, his action against the Barbary pirates, and the Louisiana Purchase.

There's certainly room for this interpretation of our third President. But Hitchens' writing itself is disappointing. The whole thing reads like notes for a much better biography. In fact, it's all so off-hand, it's almost like Hitchens blogged it.

(Another take: blogcritics)

Hitchens on religion, Coloradolib on Hitchens

The most eloquent post in my archives is "The ghost of Christopher Hitchens." In it, I attacked one of the world's sharpest writers for spending the last five years abusing his liver and making apologies for Tony Blair.

I don't have the heft to dent Hitchens. But I still thought long and hard before I clicked publish.

Hitchens is on my mind again because of his recent comments about Mormonism. From William K. Wolfrum via Crooks and Liars:

CH: "I say that anyone who believes that stuff is an idiot... Especially at a time when people are always saying it's the Republican Party that's run by religious crackpots and nutbags. And it's very important to point out these people have a big foothold in the Democratic Party, too... I think less of [Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid] because of the stupid cult of which he's a member."

Wolfrum goes on to write "Hitchens should be ashamed of himself for singling out Mormonism and apologize to all Mormons." But it's important to put the comments in context. Hitchens hates all religions. He once said, "I don't regard Islam as the enemy, I regard religion as the enemy." And in Letters to a Young Contrarian he wrote:

"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."

But right now, any stab at Mormonism stings especially hard. It is a religion under fire from evangelicals upset that the GOP's most conservative presidential frontrunner, Mitt Romney, is Mormon. It is a growing, young religion, the adherents of which may comprise 5% of America by 2042. And it is a religion concentrated in the West, which is crucial to longterm Democratic ambitions.

Hitchens' comments also cut deeply because they assail the very heart of politics. Compromise is based on respect between adversaries. How can Hitchens respect someone who says that a blue sky is red? What if 92% of America insists on it?

Is it any wonder that Hitchens has gone off the deep end? How many antitheist neocons are there these days? Not many.

Congratulations to Hitchens for having the courage to be completely alone. I hope that one day, I show the same strength. I just pray it doesn't drive me bonkers.

The ghost of Christopher Hitchens

If you listed our language's 10 finest sentences, you would find half had been crafted by Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens' works are so transcendent that remembering them inspires genius in his lessers. Examine my first sentence. The alliterative beginning. The assonantal end. Would I have written so well without Hitchens' ghost hovering over my keyboard? I doubt it. Which is why it has been difficult for me to watch him fall apart.

Hitchens' move from socialist to neocon is the stuff of legend. It began with his hatred of Bill Clinton and accelerated after 9/11. He even "slightly" endorsed George Bush in 2004. I remember reading that piece in The Nation. It was the first time that I simply could not follow one of his arguments. He wrote that liberals faced a prisoner's dilemma, forced to choose between a Democrat they despised and a third-party candidate who couldn't win:

...[Kerry] is offering you the worst of both worlds. Myself, I have made my own escape from your self-imposed quandary. Believe me when I say that once you have done it, there's no going back. I have met a few other ex-hostages, and they all agree that the relief is unbelievable.

Kerry isn't liberal enough, and he can't win, so liberals will feel better if they vote for Bush? Hm.

At first, I believed that my biases were getting in the way of my reason. But Hitchens' reviews in The Atlantic have also gone south. (I recall his willfully combative reading of The Waste Land, in particular.)

Last night, the remaining respect I had for Hitchens evaporated. NPR broadcast a segment in which Hitchens attempted to defend his new career as a neocon apologist after four double Scotches and three glasses of merlot. "I thought the United States should be defended from nihilistic Islamism and [left-wing thinkers] thought... it brought [9/11] on itself."

There are two errors in that sentence. First there's the false choice between defending our country and criticizing it. And then there's the implication that knocking over a secular dictatorship was the best way to destroy Islamic fascism. Hitchens' thought process is the same as your garden-variety Bush voter: He can't distinguish between the need for a hawkish foreign policy and the decision to invade Iraq.

The rational left's opposition to the Iraq War is built on the war's opportunity cost. If you'd given a President Al Gore $300 billion dollars and 130,000 troops on Sept. 12, 2001, Osama Bin Laden would be dead today. But we didn't have a President Al Gore. We had Bush. And so we find ourselves the babysitter of a deteriorating Iraq, our military stretched thin, our debt unmanageable, and our borders porous.

Unfortunately, it seems that Hitchens is no longer interested in debating the rational left. The NPR interview portrayed a man busy sparring with a small cadre of radical pacifists, churning out wordy reviews, and lubricating his liver.

The loss to our letters is incalculable.