Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

March 5 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

Jonah Remembers Christopher Hitchens

From today’s G-File:

Christopher Hitchens is dead.

I knew Hitch pretty well (certainly well enough to never repeat the mistake of calling him “Chris”). For starters, we lived in the same building for a couple years. He had a palatial apartment on the top floor of the Wyoming (a great big pile of bricks in D.C.). My wife and I had something more modest on the ground floor. He got along famously with my parents, not least because all three kept alive the ancient journalistic tradition of punctuating their drinking with smoking. But also because my Dad could talk about forgotten dead Communists and my Mom about their shared animosity for Bill Clinton. Over the years we saw each other, if not often, then often enough. We weren’t close friends, but that was never an impediment for Hitchens to start a conversation — or an argument. I was even a referee of sorts to one of his many fights over God, when I wrote the introduction for this book.

Nobody who knew Hitch even a little lacks stories. Some have better ones than others. My friend Matt Labash has tales about getting booze in the war-torn Middle East. I have stories about my new dog — yes, a very young Cosmo — peeing in his apartment. Or getting absolutely pickled with him because, after all, it was a Wednesday. And there was that time Peter Beinart invited my wife and I and the Hitchenses to his house for a Sabbath dinner and Hitchens proceeded to go on an anti-Israel, anti-religion, anti-God tirade that made everyone check their watches a lot. It was an odd occasion for Hitch to bust out that whole shtick. Why go to a Shabbat dinner in the first place if you’re going to spout all that stuff? It was like going to a tailgate party at Notre Dame and badmouthing the Irish.

I once wrote somewhere around NRO that I thought that maybe — just maybe — Hitchens could be considered a “man of the Right.” He was no conservative. You can’t really be a conservative in the Anglo-American tradition and hate religion. You can be a non-believer, I think. But you have to at least have respect for the role of religion and maybe a little reverence for the role of transcendence in people’s lives. Hitch had nothing but contempt. It was one of the last truly asinine Marxist things about him.

But a man of the Right is something different. A man of the Right is not a doctrinaire conservative. What a man of the Right is, however, is something harder to define. We’ll get back to that in a minute.

I first got the idea that Hitchens might be a man of the Right after watching him on C-Span discussing the Odyssey. He was on with, among others, Jody Bottum and a left-wing female academic who (at least as far as I remember it) had little to offer other than blah-blah-blah-white-males-blah-blah (I’m paraphrasing). Hitchens had no use for the woman and really had nothing to say to her. Meanwhile, he could have a real argument with Bottum because they could at least agree that the text matters and that indictments of the heterosexist norms of the Pale Penis People were not that interesting. The more I thought about it, the more it seemed to me that Hitch — who believed in the importance of Western Civilization (he said he’d rather defend Western Civilization than denounce John Ashcroft), gloried in the splendor of the Canon, admired other cultures but rejected utterly the asininity of multicultural leveling — was certainly not a man of the contemporary Left, or maybe not of the Left at all.

I no longer think Hitch was really a man of the Right, chiefly because you can’t be a man of the Right and reflexively, perhaps even childishly, reject the label. I’m not inclined to sugarcoat my take on the man given how he could be absolutely cruel when spouting off about the deaths of others. He could be mean, pigheaded, and insensitive (though never dull!). He could also be generous and kind. He was a brilliant and gifted polemicist who sometimes took the easiest way out by going after his opponents’ weakest arguments rather than their strongest. He defied easy categorization while having a gift for categorizing others. He’ll be missed because he was so damn good at being Christopher Hitchens.
 

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   27

EXPAND  

   12/16/11 15:44

Hitchens did two things in his public life for which I will always be grateful. He told Bill Maher's audience to eff off, and he never fell for any of that nauseating, "Queen of Hearts" drivel in the wake of Diana Spencer's death. "Airheaded golddigger" is the phrease he used instead.

Oh. He also exposed Sidney Blumenthal for spreading lies about Monica Lewinsky. That's the trifecta.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 Job
   12/16/11 19:10

"...he never fell for any of that nauseating, "Queen of Hearts" drivel in the wake of Diana Spencer's death."

Call me old fashioned but a little charity of thought toward a recently deceased young mother would not have been a character flaw.

One need not be maudlin to exhibit a little compassion.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
John Foust
   12/16/11 15:49

Did you hear about his deathbed conversion?

The hospital chaplain has resigned and said he's looking forward to his new life without religion.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/16/11 15:58
   12/16/11 18:11

That's the "Brideshead Revisited" ending Hitch would have preferred if he'd had the choice.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/17/11 19:06

I concur
My vote for best comment.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/16/11 15:53

I loved Hitch's writing.

Hitch was tempermentally a man of the Right in the way that Newt is tempermentally a Marxist.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
polynikes
   12/16/11 15:58

Your mention of the possibility that Hitchens could be considered a man of the Right and your fair and kind reflection of his life made me wonder how the Left is commenting on his death. I guess I could venture into that world to find out but would rather leave that to others.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
uglypanda
   12/16/11 18:25

Brilliant atheist hero...hated Reagan and Thatcher...opposed Vietnam. Oh, and he drank.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/16/11 19:55

Well, it's been a long time since I ventured onto Daily Kos, but I found several pieces commemorating him, some fondly, some unfondly, and some mixedly. An excerpt from one:

"Hitchens' support for the war in Iraq was entirely consistent with what might have been the central theme of his writing: An absolute hatred for totalitarianism in all its forms.

His early Trotskyist Marxism was abandoned when he realized, earlier than many in the Western Left, that Marxism was, and is, intrinsically and inescapably totalitarian. It can only be imposed and maintained by the iron fist.

His primary argument for the position that religion is not only factually incorrect, but actually evil, is that religion is likewise intrinsically totalitarian.

His support for the war in Iraq was the same. That, regardless of the size of the bill, removing the police state of Saddam's Iraq, with its almost surreal brutality, was worth paying the butcher for.

Even though he may yet be proven wrong about that, since the bill is not yet in and we don't yet know what it will have bought, it's hard for me to say that he was wrong in principle. And I think he was absolutely right that George HW Bush's decision to not only allow Saddam to remain in power, but to abandon those Iraqis who tried to overthrow him after the war to his non-existent mercy, was utterly craven and short-sightedly foolish.

--Shannon"

...I also stumbled upon a discussion of the benefits of widespread concealed-carry legislation. *Benefits*. On *Kos*. I had to double check to see it wasn't some sort of April Fool's posting...

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/16/11 16:14

More striking to me, in today's G-File, was how disheartened Jonah is at the abuse hurled at the magazine for perceived bias against the aspirations of the Tea Party-charged base. (I am liberally summarizing -- Jonah took no shot at the Tea Party.) Jonah defends Team-NR as good conservatives struggling with complex realities and no ideal choices. They are stung by the bashing that they have taken from those who incessantly question their motives and their integrity. Their pain is certainly understandable. Many apologies are owed, IMO, from the peanut gallery.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/17/11 01:48

I agree.

As Jonah pointed out a lot of the same people that are criticizing NR editorial were 6 months ago the same people who were criticizing Newt as a sell out.

Sometimes I hate primaries, some people are just not mentally mature enough to debate the merits of candidates without throwing a temper tantrum when you have a differing opinion.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 RJG
   12/16/11 16:18

I often came away from watching Hitch in nasty heated debate thinking he was a miserable jerk who took too much pleasure in hurting his opponents, even when I agreed with him. But he was an amazingly good writer with a truly staggering intellect, and from what I have gathered from the accounts of those who knew him and his more reflective writing, he was a man of more dimensions than his combative public face might indicate. In spite of the negative feelings he sometimes evoked in me, I can't help but feel like the world was better because he was there.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/16/11 16:20

I'm not sure I'd heard of Hitchens before today, but the one thing I noted after seeing a couple of postings around the web is that they all seem to romanticize his legendary amount of drinking and smoking. That's weird for a guy who died what must have been a very unpleasant death at age 62 for esophageal cancer.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/16/11 17:44

In America, it is custom to celebrate the life of the dead man. That often means glossing over some of the rough spots and exaggerating the good.

Maybe in your land it is custom to criticize the vices of the dead, but here it is considered rude.

I hope this helps!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/17/11 11:12

Would be nice if the gentleman himself had followed the same principle.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/17/11 19:59

"That often means glossing over some of the rough spots"

And Chris certainly learned the lesson of his new country well in his support of his fallen Communist heroes.

For all his supposed erudition, what part of "The Commies killed 100 million" could he not fathom?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Jahn Ghalt
   12/21/11 17:39

Check out his memoir "Hitch 22" - you will find that he condemned Soviet and Maoist-style communism - even as he embraced the Trotskyite label.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/16/11 18:09

Jonah, it's social conservatives like you, who think only Christians can be conservatives, that prevents us from being a permanent majority.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Maggaret Davis
   12/16/11 22:17

A very good writeup, and we will forgive the "And there was that time Peter Beinart invited my wife and I..."

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact