Hitchens in the WSJ: . . . And Why I'm Most Certainly Not!

[question everything]

...And Why I'm Most Certainly Not! (Rooting for the Religious Right..., a companion piece by Taranto, not worth posting here - QE)

By CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
May 5, 2005; Page A14

I hope and believe that, by identifying itself with "faith" in general and the Ten Commandments in particular, a runaway element in the Republican leadership has made a career-ending mistake. In support of this, let me quote two authorities:
- The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100%. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both... Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some god-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
- "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother." And he said, "All these have I kept from my youth up." Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."

The first citation is from Barry Goldwater, moral founder of the Reagan revolution, who, when I interviewed him on his retirement from the Senate, vowed to "kick Jerry Falwell in the ass." The second citation is from Luke 18:20-22.

(snip)

Yet two things are obvious. The first is that many conservatives appreciate the value of a secular republic, and do not make the idiotic confusion between "secular" and "atheist" that is so common nowadays. The second is that no "Moral Majority" type has yet proposed that the most important commandment, the one underlined by Jesus himself, be displayed in courtrooms or schoolrooms. It turns out that the Eleventh Commandment is not "Thou shalt speak no ill of fellow Republicans," but is, rather, a demand for the most extreme kind of leveling and redistribution.

I have never understood why conservative entrepreneurs are so all-fired pious and Bible-thumping, let alone why so many of them claim Jesus as their best friend and personal savior. The Old Testament is bad enough: The commandments forbid us even to envy or covet our neighbor's goods, and thus condemn the very spirit of emulation and ambition that makes enterprise possible. But the New Testament is worse: It tells us to forget thrift and saving, to take no thought for the morrow, and to throw away our hard-earned wealth on the shiftless and the losers.

(snip)

Then again, hundreds of thousands of young Americans are now patrolling and guarding hazardous frontiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Is there a single thinking person who does not hope that secular forces arise in both countries, and who does not realize that the success of our cause depends on a wall of separation, in Islamic society, between church and state? How can we maintain this cause abroad and subvert it at home? It's hardly too much to say that the servicemen and -women, of all faiths and of none, who fight so bravely against jihad, are being stabbed in the back by the sunshine soldiers of the "crusading" right. What is one to feel but rage and contempt when one reads of Arabic-language translators, and even Purple Heart-winning frontline fighters, being dismissed from the service because their homosexuality is accounted a sin?

(snip)

Mr. Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair, is author of "Thomas Jefferson: Author of America," forthcoming from HarperCollins/Atlas Books.
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111526185691225501,00.html

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Goddamn.

When he puts the bottle away, starts thinking clearly for a short while and puts pen to paper in honesty, he can make the words dance, sing and play the guitar.

Put the bottle down forever, Hitch. Put it aside. It's time has come and gone. Take it from a fellow drunk, in remission.

We need that clear voice again. Keep it loud. Use it often.

Don't muffle it with scotch.

[orwell]

2. Pontious Hitchens

Yet two things are obvious. The first is that many conservatives appreciate the value of a secular republic, and do not make the idiotic confusion between "secular" and "atheist" that is so common nowadays. The second is that no "Moral Majority" type has yet proposed that the most important commandment, the one underlined by Jesus himself, be displayed in courtrooms or schoolrooms. It turns out that the Eleventh Commandment is not "Thou shalt speak no ill of fellow Republicans," but is, rather, a demand for the most extreme kind of leveling and redistribution.

This is not "obvious at all Hitch. The Cons are in lockstep as the real fealty is not to principle, as you opine, but rather to the corporate elite overlords who "allowed" them power in the first place.

Religion was always a "cover story", urged by NeoCon/Repug strategists. These radical converted foot soldiers, some fresh from the disgruntled, discredited so called "left" utilized religious fundamentalism to bring the "great unwashed" into the fold. Who cares about personal economic persecution when fabricated religious persecution is such an easy sell.

I have never understood why conservative entrepreneurs are so all-fired pious and Bible-thumping, let alone why so many of them claim Jesus as their best friend and personal savior.

It is not understandable by true Cons like Goldwater. That is because it is not a core belief, but rather a recruiting technique. How else do you bring a bourgeoisie political philosophy of low wage "free markets" to the slipping middle and lower class?

The Old Testament is bad enough: The commandments forbid us even to envy or covet our neighbor's goods, and thus condemn the very spirit of emulation and ambition that makes enterprise possible. But the New Testament is worse: It tells us to forget thrift and saving, to take no thought for the morrow, and to throw away our hard-earned wealth on the shiftless and the losers.

Ah...we finally get to the heartfelt besotted words of the true defender of the capital class that you have become. Anyone who does not participate in the worship of the golden calf is "shiftless" or a "loser". Tell that to the guy who grows the rye for your 12 year old scotch.

Tell me Hitch. Was Einstein a loser? Why did he do theoretical work? Was it emulation and ambition?

(snip)

Then again, hundreds of thousands of young Americans are now patrolling and guarding hazardous frontiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Am I starting to sense buyer's remorse here?

Is there a single thinking person who does not hope that secular forces arise in both countries, and who does not realize that the success of our cause depends on a wall of separation, in Islamic society, between church and state?

Casus Belli? What do you mean "our cause". It is your cause. Your's and the rest of the anti-liberty, anti-free market, fascist national "security" state, under it's most recent incarnation...Pax Americana.

How can we maintain this cause abroad and subvert it at home?

It's all according to plan Hitch. Didn't you get the memo?

It's hardly too much to say that the servicemen and -women, of all faiths and of none, who fight so bravely against jihad, are being stabbed in the back by the sunshine soldiers of the "crusading" right.

Nice of you to include women. Was it an afterthought? Didn't you hear. It is a holy war. We are after the ragheads. The brown people. The Muslims. Don't you read the papers. Watch TV. Get with the program. This is as much your holy war as theirs Hitch. But it is clear that your God is mammon. Is that more defensible?

What is one to feel but rage and contempt when one reads of Arabic-language translators, and even Purple Heart-winning frontline fighters, being dismissed from the service because their homosexuality is accounted a sin?

Ah, the inevitable self loathing begins. The great hero Bush was elected in large part because of gay-baiting. How could you think it any different? You supported these madmen. They are in your bed. Now sleep with them.

And please spare me the pontification.

By the way, we told you so...

[question everything]

3. I think that his reference to "shiftless" and "losers" was sarcasm

that this is how entrepreneurs see them. Which they do, really.

And I think that by "our cause" he means the declared cause of our country. But then... I am not familiar with his writings so I may be wrong. Just reading things straight.

[orwell]

4. Read Up and Weep

I am not familiar with his writings so I may be wrong.

I am quite familiar with them. He was one of the main sell outs on the so-called "left" pre-Iraq war. He was an enthusiastic cheerleader, laying verbal waste to any that defied him. He was buying into the whole carpet of flowers greeting the victors crap.

We all know Saddam was a bad guy, which was central to Hitch's faulty arguments for war. What many of us decried was the historical amnesia that assumes you correct interventionism with more interventionism. That is why I take pains to mock his "free market" analogies.

I detect no sarcasm from Hitch. Just masked fury that he is being humiliated daily by the NeoCons that he got into bed with. With every body that falls, he must find someone to blame.

Of course, I have yet to hear him say that he made a mistake. That would require some level of compassion - or at the very least sobriety.

[komplex]

5. If you read "Letters to a young Contrarian"

Hitch has always been for military intervention for Liberation. He'll just as quickly support an invasion of Dafur, Mozambique, Saudi Arabia, North Korea & Iran. Hitch is fairly generous with our soldier's lives.

Like him or not, Hitch is his own man refusing to fall lockstep in the marching of Democrat vs. Republican.

[Chomskyite]

6. But when you say you admire Ahmad Chalabi

. . . and Paul Wolfowitz and when you construct the kind of strawmen he regularly uses to lampoon those of us who oppose the war, that puts you in a different category. You're no longer an admirable contrarian; you're a PR flack for Bush Inc.

It was sad to watch Hitchens go from what he had been to what he is now, which is little different from Rich Lowry or Charles Krauthammer.

[komplex]

7. but hitch does that for all his positions

even the ones you agree with :)

[Jade Fox]

8. Those who supported Bush, and are now mad about what they got....

It's difficult to buy their sudden shock about what they empowered.

What did they expect?