Since discovering the writings of Christopher Hitchens in
the pages of The Nation (before he
had a post 9/11 hissyfit and stomped off its pages) many years ago, I’ve had an
odd relationship with him as a reader, mixed with admiration and disappointment.
Given his passing, I’ve found myself revisiting these
feelings, and offer the following thoughts for whatever they might be worth . .
.
First, cancer can suck it.
Second, seriously, cancer can suck it. Hard.
Third, my ambivalent feelings about Hitchens come in part
from the mixed bag of his political positions.
Yes, Kissinger did criminal things.
But the man who made the case against Kissinger turns around and
supports an illegal and immoral war in Iraq?
Yes, waterboarding is obviously torture.
But Bush deserved reelection?
That, however, is garden-variety differences in opinion on
specific issues. I feel a bit more
conflicted about Hitchens because (I think) of a deeper disconnect. On one hand, I admire his rhetorical skill
greatly, as well as his willingness to take on conventional wisdom. But on the other, I found myself turned off
by what I felt was too often a boorish and bullying style when he turned his
sites on targets that, while perhaps in need of criticism, also called for a
more nuanced approach than Hitchens was willing or able to deliver.
Take, for example, his infamous skewering
of Mother Teresa. On one hand, it’s
probably good to cast a skeptical eye on figures in society who seem beyond
reproach and ask if our unqualified praise is merited. Is it possible that, in celebrating the
alleged virtues of poverty and championing policies of the Catholic Church
(e.g. no contraception), Mother Theresa at times did and said things that might
have run counter to her professed mission to help the poor? I don’t know, but it’s a question worth
asking. On the other hand, to lambaste
the woman as a “fanatic, fundamentalist, and a fraud” is like lighting a candle
with a flamethrower: obscene overkill lacking any careful use of that quality
Hitchens professed be committed to—reason.
It was that needlessly bombastic, pugilistic rhetorical
style that made me feel a bit uncomfortable even when I found myself in general
agreement with him. It’s also what made
his career, so I can’t say that he would have been better off taking a more
nuanced approach to his topics, but I felt he sometimes gave “reason” and “intellect”
a bad name by wielding them like a Bowie knife rather than a scalpel.
