"In a friend one should have one's best enemy. You should be closest to him with your heart when you resist him."
"Your compassion should be a guess–to know first whether your friend wants compassion. Perhaps what he loves in you is the unbroken eye and the glance of eternity. Compassion for the friend should conceal itself under a hard shell, and you should break a tooth on it. That way it will have delicacy and sweetness," – Friedrich Nietzsche.
If Christopher quit the left … he never joined the right. Like his hero George Orwell, Christopher was a man whose most creative period of life was a period of constantly falling between two stools: his new hatred for George Galloway never dimmed his old animosity toward Henry Kissinger. He was for the Iraq war without ever much trusting or liking the leaders who led that war. The stock phrase of the 2000s on the right was “moral clarity.” If moral clarity means hating cruelty and oppression, then Christopher Hitchens was above all things a man of moral clarity. But he was also a man of moral complexity, who would not submit to Lenin’s demand that who says A must say B. Christopher was never more himself than when – after saying A – he adamantly refused to say B.
Like his hero, Orwell, Christopher prized bravery above all other qualities–and in particular the bravery required for unflinching honesty. And as was true of the work of Orwell, the former colonial policeman, this devotion paradoxically lent a certain military coloring to Christopher's intellectual, literary, and political pursuits. This most intellectual of men valued intelligence, but valued courage far more–or rather, he believed that true intellect was inseparable from courage. It's commonly said that Christopher couldn't stand stupidity. That isn't true: He couldn't tolerate stupidity married to pretentiousness or dishonesty. It's also said that Hitchens was intolerant of his adversaries. True, he saw many of his adversaries–the shabby and dishonest–as beneath contempt. Rightly so. But he could be far more than tolerant of those honest men and women who were devoted to causes he found abhorrent: He paid honor to his enemies.
One of our lunches, at Café Milano, the Rick’s Café of Washington, began at 1 P.M., and ended at 11:30 P.M. At about nine o’clock (though my memory is somewhat hazy), he said, “Should we order more food?” I somehow crawled home, where I remained under medical supervision for several weeks, packed in ice with a morphine drip. Christopher probably went home that night and wrote a biography of Orwell. His stamina was as epic as his erudition and wit.
Like all of us, he was often wrong, but never in the way everyone else was wrong. His originality was a constant, his independence an unstoppable engine. He loved to argue and debate, not because he was a bully but because he thought it pointed in the direction of truth. And possibly because he was better at it than anyone else. It was moving to see Christopher applying his integrity to the experience of dying. He went out on his own terms, with no sentimentality or regret, telling it straighter than anyone else would dare.
Hitchens was the best kind of essayist. You'd start reading, unsure what position he was going to take. You'd finish knowing just why he took it, and you'd be wondering why you didn't, or spitting with frustration at how wrong he was, how you just knew it, how you could prove it if you, well, you'd need a few minutes to sort this out, first you needed some paper…
A foolish consistency is a terrible error and no-one, perhaps not even those dolts who hated him, could accuse Christopher of that. But though he was often a contrarian he was rarely a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. There was a point to it all and it was not a pose struck for the sake of, well, just striking a pose. That said, his poses were also an aesthetic matter: Hitch had style and he knew it and traded on it and that was all just fine. You could love it but you also, if you were being honest with yourself, envied it and, in sourer moments, almost resented it because you knew you could never match it. That was your problem, not Christopher's.
Every moment in his presence was joyous, even when we were arguing; he was wildly entertaining, by turns provocative and gracious. He may have been among the last of his kind–truly, a thought-full man of letters, rather than of “takes” and sound bites. I will miss the joy of reading him, and chatting with him at parties; but more, I worry that Hitch is taking with him a world, a world of contemplative reading and writing–the very opposite of what I am doing right now, posting an immediate reaction to his death on this blog. He lived life perpetually intoxicated, not just by booze (he was happily soused during our English debate), but by books and words and thoughts and ideas. I will miss him, and all the excesses he cherished. We need more such, and are left with less.
I could sense it coming. But I couldn't write anything beforehand and I cannot write anything worthy of him now. So I just sat down an hour ago when I heard the news – Aaron told me as he clicked on Gawker – and sat a while and got up to write and then blubbered a bit and, staring at the screen, read through some emails from him.
I'd asked him last year to write a letter to the Immigration Services sponsoring me to finally become a permanent resident of the United States. Who better than my fellow Englishman immigrant of the last twenty-five years? A while later, he emailed:
Safely in the US mail. I managed to say that your faith had allowed you to extend a warm hand to so many of your fellow men, and then remolded that bit to make it sound a touch less close to the heart's desire.
Brunch? Sunday? Smooch Hitch
I responded,
lol. many many many thanks. an honor. brunch sounds great. we tend not to be conscious till around noon, tho. xx a
He replied:
Dearest Andrew I always think of Sunday lunch as beginning at about 2.30 ("a lavish and ruminative feast", as Waugh says about elevenses). Want to come here?
Yes, I do, Hitch. Yes, I do.
Today on the Dish, Andrew live-blogged the last debate before the Iowa caucuses, and we collected reax here. Gingrich lost altitude in the polls, Romney saw a lift in Iowa, and Fox News rejected the democratic process (more disdain here, and a reader's thoughts here). Gingrich has done everything for himself, and he may not even want to be president. In our AAA video, Andrew thought through a Ron Paul presidency, he elaborated on his endorsement in a response to Frum, and Brian Doherty reflected on Paul as a normal political choice. Paul did in fact disown Reagan, Romney has a private equity problem, and his life as a poor missionary in Paris came under dispute. We previewed a crucial moment of Gingrich's candidacy, assembled reax to the Ryan-Wyden plan to reform Medicare, and Obama capitulated on indefinite detention. We assessed Ron Paul's chances, the congressman refused the marriage pledge (take a look at the comments at NRO here), National Review put out an entire magazine to "anti-endorse" Gingrich, and the Weekly Standard held out.
The war in Iraq came to a formal end, John McCain doubled down on US imperialism, and Greenwald provided an update on the Josh Block smears. We imagined a post-Assad Syria, Huntsman is unreasonable on Iran, and every people is "an invented people."
We debated the best ways to discourage and prevent date rape, the field of neuroeconomics emerged, and the typical law professor knows nothing about being a lawyer. A reader warned against playing with gender stereotypes, Hitch has not found God and is not finding God (related dissent of the day here), and infertile women do not lack families.
Chart of the day here, FOTD here, MHB here, VFYW here, and shit gay guys say here.
— M.A.
Newt’s opponents are clobbering him on the air with an avalanche of negative ads. He has no money to respond (even with positive ads) or surrogates to defend him. And maybe that’s all that matters. But I still felt like Gingrich did better in this debate …
Romney tries to persuade on the level of factual truth. Gingrich goes straight for emotional truth. This is a way, come to think of it, in which Romney is like a Democrat. It’s very Al Gore, or John Kerry, that style. It doesn’t break through. Gingrich breaks through.
I think Bachmann briefly had Gingrich on the ropes. His claim that lobbying for Freddie Mac was a business like any other rang very hollow. But Gingrich recovered his poise, delivering several crowd-pleasing answers about liberal judges running amok, and Obama losing his marbles on Keystone. I certainly don't think Newt said anything zany enough, or looked riled enough to lose his lead. So that, in effect, makes him the victor, with an honourable mention for Bachmann.
Gingrich took on some water over Freddie Mac, but other than that, I think the evening was his — again. If people vote based on debates, he will be the nominee
Gingrich performed better than anybody in the debate, although Michelle Bachmann REALLY hurt him among women by fighting back against him repeatedly saying she has her facts wrong (she doesn't) in a way that sounded like, well, a male chauvinist correcting a "little lady." And all the other attacks on him on Iowa TV, all well-founded, mean that his campaign is really in at least temporary difficulty overall. The Freddie/Fannie attacks against him really hurt, too, even though he handled it as well as anybody could have.
I was worried about this on Paul's behalf: He's getting ample time to explain why he disagrees with the Republican [foreign] policy mainstream. His victory strategy in Iowa isn't to win over the Republicans who agree with that consensus — he needs to grab 25 percent, maybe, if he's lucky — but he gains no support on answers like this. He's even put in the position of defending Barack Obama's position on sanctions.
Various pundits are the right are attacking Ron Paul for those answers. Here's Ryan Preston:
Newt Gingrich had the most to lose but he didn’t do the most losing. Ron Paul had a terrible run when attempting to explain his policies on Iran’s nuclear program, ultimately losing a one-on-one confrontation with Michele Bachmann. This was Ron Paul’s worst debate.
Aaron Goldstein basically calls Paul a traitor:
After tonight's performance, especially following his exchange with Bachmann over Iran, I am convinced that [Ron Paul] would be the perfect spokesman for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. During WWII, you had Tokyo Rose. Today, you have Tehran Ron.
E.D. Kain completely disagrees:
Iran may indeed be a threat, but there are other ways to approach this threat than war, including working to bring Iran into the global economy, giving them a stake in the peace and prosperity of the world economy. The far greater threat, as Paul warned, is a costly and destructive overreaction.
Ron Paul did lots to help himself with the 15% of the party who already love him. Little for the 85% who don't.
Nothing tonight likely slowed Gingrich’s descent in the polls, or, as far as I could see, determined which candidate will gain from that decline. At least, not the debate itself; winning the spin from it, which is affected not so much by what happened but by how high-profile Republicans choose to play it, certainly could have a significant effect.
11 pm. One word on the questioners: far, far, far better than Sawyer and Stephanopoulos. Kelly and Baier stood out. Wallace gets cred on Romney and gays. And we didn't have all that reality show crap at the beginning. And one word on those "dings" from a reader:
I keep looking at my Gchat thinking that the chime is a close friend wanting to tell me something actually interesting. Fox news is for old people that don't know how to use gmail.
10.58 pm. What does this do? I'm not sure it changes much. Gingrich was the strongest to my mind, with the exception of his dreadful defensiveness on his whoring for money in the rotating doors of Washington's corrupt elite. Romney needed to up his game and score some real points. He failed, I think. Huntsman had his best debate yet – and makes me wonder if I have under-rated him as a campaigner and debater. Bachmann really came back strong, but Ron Paul stood out. His refusal to pander on judges and Iran gave him a real distinction. Perry was better than recently.
I suspect Gingrich will retain his lead – because he showed some humor and because he relates to the viscera of this party in a way that Romney simply cannot. Romney will dip in Iowa, and Bachmann and Paul will gain. Will the Iran answer torpedo him? Probably. But if the GOP thinks Americans are going to back a pre-emptive war on another Middle Eastern Muslim country, they're deluding themselves. Bush refused to do it. So in this sense, Paul is closer to Bush on Iran than the rest of them. So the Republican Establishment panic will soon intensify.
10.57 pm. Gingrich acts in this final segment as the anti-Obama conciliator. But again Ron Paul and Huntsman stand out by defending clear, open, robust debate, including arguments based on policy.
10.50 pm. Bachmann tries to ding Gingrich on abortion. And she won't back down. And Newt then does! He admits he refused to purge Republicans on the issue of partial birth abortion. Advantage: Bachmann. And did I mishear or did he call her "Congressman Bachmann." Did I detect a little early Thatcher spirit in Bachmann there. I warmed to her feminism. She and Megyn Kelly have been on a roll tonight.
10.43 pm. Romney says he hasn't changed his mind on gay rights. He ran for office promising to be a more pro-gay Senator than Ted Kennedy. Who in the last twenty years has gone from that position to a Federal Marriage Amendment? Kudos to Wallace for reciting these words right back at him. Romney then defends himself on non-discrimination. So does he oppose the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act? Would he sign it?
Santorum pounces. Romney seems resigned to losing on this with this primary electorate. I have never seen his pro-gay past so effectively brought up in public. It's about time.
10.41 pm. Huntsman tells the truth! Illegal immigration is lower than in 40 years! And he rightly notes the desperate need for reform of legal immigration, especially H-1 visas. He's done extremely well tonight – the best performance of his campaign.
10.36 pm. Perry thinks that Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are trying to attack the US via the Mexican border. Note how Obama's massive shift of resources to the border, his huge uptick in deportations, and the collapse of illegal immigration … makes no difference to this crowd. Romney now proceeds to propose a biometrical card for legal immigrants. I have one in my wallet. It's called a green card. What are these people talking about? But Newt's immigration answer is very strong in thi context. Again, I think he is beating Romney tonight – in so far as he is appealing more successfully to the Republican base.
10.31 pm. A reader writes:
Left wing Dish head, first time writing. Huntsman's statement was the first time I've ever said "I'd vote for that guy," about a Republican. He demonstrated a conservatism without craven submission to the banks. I would take that over Obama's sycophantic attitude toward the financial sector any day.
Another notes:
Perry wants to "get it on" with Obama in a debate. I assume he meant "bring it on" maybe, but in light of his recent anti-gay campaign ad, maybe it was a Freudian slip.
Rick Perry is a walking Freudian slip. Another writes:
Dude, I know that sports isn't your strong suit, but really! What kind of ball are you playing with?!? "Gingrich is pitched the softest of softballs on the UN and hits it out of the park." OK?!?!?
10.23 pm. Gingrich deftly, beautifully deflects the "zany" attack and claims he is editing himself. The best lines of the night. Charming. And moderation, mond you, equals attacking "left-wing environmental activists in San Francisco." A lovely bit of gay-baiting thrown into the mix. Gingrich killed that one. He's winning this debate. But notice that any defense of environmental policy is finished in this party. The environment is the enemy. Oil companies can do no wrong – even after the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
The shift away from any attempt at balance between economic and environmental interests is striking. The whole idea of climate change – or any concern about it – is completely absent here. That is true of no other political party, right and left, in the entire Western world. It is certainly not true of China, which is investing massively in green and nuclear energy. This party is a radical outlier on the civilized planet on this question.
10.21 pm. "No space" between the US and Israel. None. Our entire Middle East policy determined by the Israeli government. Perry argues that the US should have bombed Iran, i.e. launched a war, to destroy the drone. So one candidate wants war with Iran now.
10.19 pm. Gingrich is handed the softest of soft balls on the UN and runs with it. He scores. In my view, he is beating Romney tonight. And Paul's clarity and difference on foreign policy really might resonate with Iowans.
10.14 pm. Bachmann is now simply stating as facts the wildest notions of Iran's avowed threat to attack Israel and, even more absurdly, the US. These people are paranoid beyond belief. If you want to know why I endorse Ron Paul, this exchange clinches it. Most of these Republicans would launch a far more dangerous, reckless and counter-productive war than the one against Iraq. That is a huge issue. And only one candidate will oppose it.
10.12 pm. Again, Romney accuses the president of treason, saying he backs Chinese power over American. Romney wants a doubling of warships and 100,000 new troops. How to pay for that? No answer. But what's notable about Romney is his resolute intention to play the treason card.
10.10 pm. Santorum thinks that the Shiite regime in Iran is equivalent to al Qaeda. Then he argues that they actually want to destroy their entire country as an act of collective martyrdom. He's nuts. But his belligerence brings some lusty roars from the crowd. The appeal of military aggression as the core activity of the US government is deep in the GOP.
10.05 pm. Now we see the courage of Ron Paul. Why is it more "left" to be prudent in intervening rather than rash. Over-reaction and pre-emptive war are not conservative values. And Ron Paul makes an argument from the point of view of the Iranians. An attempt at proper context – given the massive nuclear superiority of Israel, and the nuclear capacity of Pakistan and North Korea. The character of the man shines through: this is courage.
9.59 pm. Perry also wants to strip lifetime tenure from judges. Gingrich and Romney refuse to pick one. Huntsman reveals less extremism in not endorsing Thomas or Scalia.
9.50 pm. Gingrich defends stripping the judiciary of its independent powers. He's now on a roll about judges as anti-American. It's red meat for the base. And it will help him a lot. Bachmann also wants to destroy any judicial restraints on the tyranny of the majority. And she uses the Iowa marriage decision as a great springboard. Once again, Ron Paul emerges as the serious constitutionalist – and refuses to pander. This is exactly why I like him. He speaks truth to panderers and believes in the separation of powers. Gingrich doesn't. Romney, to his credit, defends the constitution against Gingrich's anti-constitutional radicalism.
9.49 pm. After Santorum asks for manufacturing industrial policy, Romney disavows any. Romney lies when saying that Obama believes the US is in decline. When has Obama said that?
9.46 pm. The Chinese have not been helping Huntsman's China policy these days, have they?
9.39 pm. A very dumb attack on Paul on earmarks. He defends himself with a great argument about taking deductions in the tax code. Cavuto doesn't listen. Paul argues forcefully for a president who doesn't want power, who doesn't want to run things, who wants to protect the freedom of the citizens of the US. That radical argument, which is deep in American history and tradition, is the real change Paul represents. "I don't want to run things!" "I don't want to run the world!" Given our bloated dictatorial imperial presidency, it's the cure.
9.31 pm. How did Barney Frank "exploit" his power with respect to Freddie and Fannie, as Newt asserts, before he attacks others for loose allegations? And Gingrich's answer on this was a terrible mess. Paul destroyed him. I don't see how Gingrich can defend this corporate cronyism and financial whoring. Then he's telling the crowd that there are great examples of government-run enterprises around the country. Bachmann comes in for the kill: she wanted to end Freddie Mac when Gingrich was cashing its checks. Her best moment yet in any of the debates.
Gingrich is reeling. His line about lobbying is pathetic. And Bachmann, God bless her, won't relent. She uses Politifact against Gingrich. His response is rattled and weak. On the ropes. And arguing in Iowa that the government's encouragement of home ownership is still a good idea, he is surely sowing even more doubts about his conservative credibility.
9.30 pm. Romney is using GM as his best riposte to Obama on the Bain question? But Romney wanted the company to go bankrupt; Obama saved it – and it has returned to health.
9.23 pm. I found Huntsman's answer on leadership the best of the bunch – and the first time he has really used his remarkably successful record in Utah to effect. Maybe I have under-estimated his political skills and he is warming up. I stand by all the things I said about him substantively in my Paul endorsement.
But notice how all of them argued that they would lead by standing on principle. Isn't that Paul's central point? And, as I said in today's "Ask Andrew Anything", we are electing one branch of government, not a dictator.
9.20 pm. Romney is invoking his bipartisanship in Massachusetts in the primary context. Odd. To call an 85 percent Democratic Massachusetts legislature a "blessing in disguise" is not exactly a winner in Iowa. But it's a good pivot for the general. Does he think he has this in the bag?
9.17 pm. Huntsman is the best he's been in an opening statement: especially on Wall Street. Great line on pandering. And some zip. At last.
9.16 pm. Perry invokes Tim Tebow – another appeal to the Christianist base.
9.14 pm. Did Bachmann say she would spend her presidency attacking Barack Obama? Yes she did. But she did make a clear concession: she says she used to be a "normal person". Not any more.
9.13 pm. Marcus went overboard with the mascara this time.
9.12 pm. Romney makes his case as a businessman as his core quality against Obama. But he seems rather subdued to me. Gingrich was far more alive and commanding.
9.08 pm. Ron Paul challenges Rush Limbaugh while echoing him. Obama is beating himself. And then he makes a clear case for his philosophy, and for massive spending cuts in the first year. His entire case is the same as Gingrich's – except Paul has a far more consistent conservative record than Gingrich. And notice that he managed to avoid answering the question on whether he would endorse whoever wins the nomination.
9.06 pm. Gingrich's response to the electability question was superb. From the Christmas pandering to the reminder of how Reagan was dismissed as incapable of beating Carter at this point in the cycle in 1979. The core points: I can bring a clear contrast with Obama and I can beat him in a debate. It's exactly what the base wants to here: very large change. A total home-run, in my view.
9.03 pm. The crowd is obviously going to be a player tonight. Paul and Gingrich get the biggest applause.
Maggie Gallagher celebrates a serial adulterer and thrice-married man as an adjunct to her own crusade. No irony involved. But read the comments. And know hope.
That's how State Department Syria hand Frederic Hof, speaking for the Administration, described Assad. The Economist looks to the Arab League to make Hof's prediction a reality:
Since it took the unprecedented step of imposing sanctions against Syria last month, the league is the key to diplomacy aimed at bringing Mr Assad down. Western governments, which have steadily tightened sanctions against Mr Assad, are taking their cue from it. So far Russia and China have refused to consent to any measures in the UN Security Council similar to those that helped get rid of Muammar Qaddafi. It will be for the league to persuade them to fall into line.
Streets Inc. disagrees, claiming "the Arab League has failed." Mounir Abdulnasser and Michael Totten are relatively hopefully about a post-Assad Syria. Maysaloon is scared:
I'm exhausted. Not physically, although that is starting to get affected too, but mentally. I want to sleep for longer periods, and I have started to avoid anything which is too realistic whenever I turn the television on. It's almost as if, by watching even more and more ridiculous television I might be able to satisfy this urge for escapism that has grown inside me. The news from Syria is getting progressively worse, and my biggest concern is now for all those loved ones that I've left behind in that beautiful country. Only a few days ago, I asked a Syrian I knew, from the older generation, how come nobody was able to stand up to tyranny and the dictatorship that was forming when Hafez Assad took power in 1970. She told me it was because everybody was afraid, that after this "corrective movement", the Syrian people started to feel a particular type of fear for the first time in living memory.
Jonathan Miller reports on "Assad's torture machine," and The Revolting Syrian flags an interview with torture survivors. This man, Mazen Qadhi, was simply shot in the head:
This demonstration in Idlib two days ago looks rather large:
And finally, Yousif Ahmed's family – including his mother and children – grieves over his bruised and battered body (English subtitles):
Kevin Drum agrees with Chris Wallace:
Ron Paul isn't going to win the GOP nomination, and if he manages to pull out some kind of freak victory in a small state with a weird nominating process, well, it's just a freak victory. Why shouldn't Chris Wallace point out quite accurately that this is exactly how the Republican establishment would view it?
Because he is supposed to be an independent journalist, not a tool for Roger Ailes. And Kevin isn't moderating a debate tonight in which he has already declared he believes one candidate is a joke. James Joyner sides with Drum:
Paul’s an interesting character and he adds a valuable point of view to the debates. And he deserves to be in the debates, given that he does have sizable support. But his ceiling is somewhere around 15 percent.
Right now. But as we have seen in this race, anything can happen. And even if Joyner is right, that ceiling makes him the third man in the race right now. Romney's is around 22 percent. And look at the match-ups between Obama and the GOP candidates. Obama has an 8.4 percent lead over Gingrich and an 8.8 percent lead over Paul. He beats Perry by 10.7 percent and Santorum by 11 percent. In terms of general election electability, the polls put Paul in a tied second place with Gingrich, with Huntsman at his heels. Rush Limbaugh is simply arguing against the data.
These are the objective data we now have. What I object to is the automatic liberal media bias that doesn't treat this serious principled candidate seriously; and the consistent, sustained, vicious war on him by Fox, and the neocon right.
I might add that up to this point in the last cycle, exactly the same things were said about Barack Obama. And if a moderator of the Iowa debate had in advance said that a victory for him would discredit Iowa's electoral process, he would not have been allowed to moderate. Nor should Wallace tonight.
A man who has had three marriages wants to deny me and every other gay person even one. And he signs a pledge designed to veto states’ rights by a federal constitutional amendment to make gay Americans permanently stigmatized as second class citizens.
Guess who hasn’t signed the pledge in Iowa? Ron Paul. Huntsman isn’t competing so wasn’t asked.
The Dish 