Sheldon wrote:Mugwump wrote:Hitch could always turn a phrase and was good for the odd comedy interlude. But when he abandoned the good ship Albion and doggy-paddled ashore in the US things began to slip. Over the years his Vanity Fair stuff became increasingly difficult to read (frenetic, fragmented with low signal to noise) and you did well if you found an article in which argument and conclusion knew of each other's existence.
I mean, I liked his book attacking Kissinger's limitless war profiteering but he was suspiciously blind to GWB and his cronies doing precisely the same thing. Why he chose to ascribe weird altruistic motives to Bush's "Grand Vision" when he spent much of his career arguing few politicians possess any such notion I'm not sure. Unfortunately, much of his later years and ego were occupied with beating up on intellectual weaklings (far right Christian fundamentalists, conspiracy theorists etc. - the kind of folk he wouldn't have bothered with twenty years ago) - but when taken to task on, say, his support for Bush's policies by guys like Michael Parenti he looked like a fool.
Upon learning of his illness he re-invented himself for a third time and his articles improved (I think he finally realised the rich American media magnates had played him for a fool) but he wasted too many good years staggering out of any boozer that would serve him a row of triple measures until 5am.
Love him or loathe him Galloway hit right home with his "... drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay" remark. Although to give Hitchens his due he had enough of a sense of humour to appreciate it.
That debate, Michael Parenti v Michael Hitchens, I've only read a small amount of and to be honest I can see both sides of the argument.
I can't find the link for the full debate, any help would be greatly appreciated.
I think I watched it on YouTube. If not you might find a link to it on Parenti's site. It's been a while, tho. There's also a good debate between Edward Said and Hitchens in which the former forensically destroys Samuel P. Huntingdon's "Clash of Civilisations" thesis - the foundation for much of Hitch's reasoning for agreeing with Bush's Iraq policy.
This was much of my problem with Hitchens during the last ten years of his life. I mean, when you first see him beating up on loony far right Christian fundamentalists and wackos you can't help but enjoy the comedy. But after a while it becomes wearisome - even uncomfortable. A bit like watching a big kid picking exclusively on small ones in the playground. Unfortunately, when Hitchens did choose to swim with bigger fish (like Said, Parenti or Chomsky) he often ended up as lunch.
It was especially uncomfortable watching him being reminded of much of his earlier rhetoric (before his move to the US) - say his support for the Viet Cong, the Algerian war of independence (one of the bloodiest in modern history where the division between civilian and combatant was blurred to the point of non-existence) etc. - and his, IMO, unsuccessful attempts to reconcile such with his view on Iraq. Not that I have a problem with people changing their opinions over time (I'm far more suspicious of people who claim not to have) but given their force and reasoning it's hard to see - by reasoning alone - how he moved from one end of the spectrum to the other.
