> <http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11241>
>
>> ...I of course like to think of myself as having been a "Sixty
>> Eighter" or even soixante-huitard rather than merely a "Sixties
>> person"...
>
>
> Of course. Was he always this pompous, or has it gotten worse?
I don't mind pomposity, myself. Take Gore Vidal. He's at least as self-important as Hitchens can be, but he undercuts it with some humor that's fun to read. But for me, it's also humor I appreciate best at a distance. I get the feeling the guy's a terrible snob, and I've never been someone that snobs want to hang around with.
The interview was actually sort of fun. The interviewer seems to have internalized every one of David Horowitz's resentments, and a lot of the questions seem designed to get Hitchens to say something that'd support those resentments. But Hitchens seems to recognize this, and actually works against it: he stresses the conservative duplicity over the Rushdie fatwah, their support for creeps like Henry Kissinger, the know-nothing evil of Falwell and Robertson and-- especially risible to Southern California cranks-- Rabbi Lupin.
The main problems I have with Hitchens here are twofold. He seems to be giving the neo-cons a lot of latitude about their sincerity, citing the _Weekly Standard's_ criticisms of Trent Lott as an example of a principled desire to break with the old-style racist crap. In one sense, it's certainly possible; we are living in a time when nearly everyone recognizes the greatness of the Civil Rights movement, and to me, it's no surprise that modern conservatives growing up in the second half of the 20th century would regard racism as an evil requiring eradication. (It also doesn't surprise me that many others have cultivated a more media-friendly version of racism, too.) But this doesn't put them on the side of the angels in other matters.
My other problem comes from this comment: "The anti-war and neutralist forces share the blame here, because there was nothing to stop them saying, very well Mr. President, let us commonly design a plan for a new Iraq and think about what will be needed. Instead, all energy had to be spent on convincing people that Iraq should no longer be run by a psychotic crime family - which if the other side had had its way, it still would be." The American Left is sort of used to being outside of power for a long time, and this has bred a high degree of suspicion of working within established institutions. And this was the Bush Administration doing this-- people whose record didn't instill terrific confidence in rebuilding a nation. One could find fault with this suspicion, but it just doesn't strike me as a reason to place such a high degree of blame upon the Left.
In other words-- while I can see good reasons for having removed Saddam from power, and while I wish the task had been handled more effectively, I don't see the reason to equate the antiwar movement with those who actively supported Saddam Hussein.