Christopher Hitchens

Defying Boundaries: A Reflection on the Legendary Christopher Hitchens


Christopher Hitchens

We fancy that we live in an age of individualism, but to read a true free-thinker such as Christopher Hitchens is to see that the American population is often conformist. We may no longer assume religious leaders can do no wrong and we may be comfortable criticizing politicians, but we slavishly follow the latest cultural trends and the accept the political status quo without thinking for ourselves. When ordinary citizens who do take a stand on an issue—say by posting a comment on a news item on a website—the tone is predominantly emotional, ad hominem, and irrational. Those who argue for what they believe, both fearlessly and intellectually, are indeed rare bread. The recently departed “Hitch” was just such a thinker.

Christopher Hitchens was more than just a journalist who had no problem speaking his mind. Hitchens’ willingness to buck the status quo was evident when he targeted revered figures such as Mother Teresa and Jackie Kennedy. How he phrased such attacks made Hitchens notorious, especially when he turned his sights on heroes of the left. For instance, he wrote that Bill Clinton, claiming he “could change his mind on any issue, but couldn't change the fact that he was a scumbag” (Christopher Hitchens Quotes) Hitchens did not concern himself with the celebrity of the people wrote about or, indeed, what people might think of him. Educated at Oxford, Hitchens was trained to debate. He placed the utmost emphasis on getting the ideas right and communicating them powerfully. He was also something of a polymath. He read widely in literature and history. His range of interests was so wide that he was able to pique the interest of just about any reader. Most people could find something to hate among Hitchen’s essays, but that is the point: he got them to read, then to get irritated, and then to think about why they were irritated.

Hitchen’s most controversial provocations concerned religion. Hitchens devoted much of his writing, especially in the last decade, to articulating the case for atheism and criticizing all forms of institutional religion for their tendency to fundamentalism. Hitchens didn’t go into this tentatively; he went right for the jugular in 1999 by savaging the most beloved religious figure of the late 20^th century, Mother Teresa. The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practicequestioned what makes Teresa so divine, as she is on the fast track to sainthood. Hitchen’s follows up on the story of Mother Teresa in an article he wrote in 2003, “Mommie Dearest”, in which he critically examines what qualifications Teresa has to be appointed to sainthood as well as the mannerisms of the Catholic Church. Hitchen’s begins with criticizing the actions of Pope John Paul II in bypassing the standard rules of beatification, including that one must be passed on for at least 5 years before nominated for‘sainthood’, yet in this case, Mother Teresa was dead for only one year before being nominated. This is done to avoid one being nominated because of popularity during that time, a claim Hitchens believes to ring true in this situation. Yet Hitchens does more than just make what seem to be bold uneducated claims against the actions of the Pope. He goes on to make a witty remark about her status stating that, “Surely any respectable Catholic cringes with shame at the obviousness of the fakery” (Mommie Dearest), making even the most devout Catholic truly question the credibility of this great woman.

I am honestly offended by this statement, questioning who he thinks he is attacking such a strong woman. I find myself questioning his ability to even cross this line, as he has no belief in God at all- was the situation I find myself in not his goal from the start? Hitchens relentlessly exposes the flaws in her movements-her receiving immersive support from the Duvalier family and Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Fund, with the money received seeming to disappear. In addition to more than 500 covenants being formed in her name, he questions where the modesty is found in this. I have now been moved- confused- considering the validity by examining for myself what this means for my own belief, and our religion as a whole. We are not afraid to criticize our religious leaders, but Mother Teresa was always an exception. Hitchens stoutly denies any purpose of religion in our lives, yet walks a line here to sway Catholics from an apparent lie. I wonder if he is right, if we follow Mother Teresa’s model, in which he claims she was “… a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud…” (Mommie Dearest), will the problem of poverty and sickness ever be solved, or only deepened as his information indicates. The idea of criticizing such a beloved woman seems preposterous, but such a view is what Hitch desired, putting thoughts into devout Catholics minds, questioning the reality.

            Hitchens valiantly defied controversy writing for Vanity Fair, addressing any issue he sought fit, exposing the truth boldly, despite offending, knowing it was necessary to make society think about the truth. Hitchens found it essential to shock our culture by exposing issues involving those we place on pedestals. However, a self-proclaimed liberalist, he fearlessly writes about individuals that most would expect him to dutifully praise. Not doings so would have been a violation of his purpose, to expose the truth behind a supposed ‘honor’. Hitchens audaciously criticized President Obama’s nomination and receiving of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, titled “Underqualified for the Overrated”. Hitchens criticized exactly what the reader is fed by the media; whether confusing or angering them, ultimately driving them to understand the actual concern of the situation. Leading me to question who was actually qualified to receive the award from cynicals like Henry Kissinger to well known charitable as Mahatma Ghandi. Methodically done to liken such a ‘politically correct’ man as Obama to the facetious value a Nobel Peace prize seems to retain. I am moved by his words, taking into consideration that I have more conservative beliefs than he does, but it is clear that the most devout liberalist can respect him by attacking the very validity of the award. His words have a seeming power to them, one being able to recreate in their mind him screaming this at someone defending Obama’s nomination, a true testament to the bold writer he was. As a society are known for attacking our politicians, Hitchens goes further to make bold accusations about a prestigious prize being corrupted by those same politics, globally. Hitchens plays on information that older Americans will relate to younger generations, for instance discussing the nomination of former President Carter, who received the award in 2002 for his opposition to the foreign policy of an elected sitting president in the United States. Is this not a political statement in itself? Hitchens in true form forces the average American to open their eyes, and challenge those who bestow these awards, as well as the recipients.

            A truly great writer adjusts to the crowd addressed, understanding the media obsessed culture he utilizes the best method to make these issues seem relevant to a society that might normally turn their back. This is how Hitchens catches me, both drawing on literature and a movie that most would be well aware of, boldly relating the job of the executive chief in its current state as “…Barack Obama as Tom Cruise, praised and promoted for nipping crime in the bud by arresting people before they actually commit any offence. (A whole new slogan on which to run: ‘Tough on pre-crime’!)” (Underqualified for the Overrated).

In this case, Hitchens refers to one of his own idols, George Orwell, as well as making a political statement that Obama himself has not done anything worthy of a Nobel peace prize at this point in his presidency. Hitchens refusal to empathize with Obama’s situation is attributed to his very being, he uses violence- a widely criticized feat of his- accompanied by a widely educated response. A result of his belief in Marxism, requiring a wide range of disciplines to be studied - sees this as only method to get to our culture that is obsessed with strife and death as the only way to open our eyes to the issues that must be discussed affecting our entire generation. It may be too far in my opinion to say that all Americans understand the crisis in the Middle East, but his discussion of how Obama would actually qualify for an award makes me realize the preposterousness of the situation. Unless he is able to peacefully without any American force negotiate a nonviolent transition to an Iran that has nuclear power but no nuclear weapons, he has not been worthy of this formerly prestigious award. A spiteful remark regarded an increasingly unrealistic situation- presently proven with his recent threat of Iran.

Hitchens instigates, understanding that tapping into our ‘American’ ways- our American pride- is the best way to focus a culture and essentially entice us to believe that this is just wrong-attributed to our go-getter attitude of a society when threatened. Hitch defied the status-quo that Obama deserved it, exposing the truth assertively. Hitchens daringly warns the president that he should not challenge his luck he has had thus far stating that he should not “…tempt fate by accepting a prize for a race you haven’t yet entered, let alone won…” (Underqualified for the Overrated). He departs seeding a thought in our mind, questioning motives, and challenging the preconceived notions one may have had until this point. His intentions are to create enemies, tempting us to cross boundaries, and make the nation aware. Aware of what this prize means for the president himself, as well as what the prize may mean throughout our lifetime.

            Hitch truly destroyed boundaries, fearlessly and compassionately. Hitchens politically believed what many liberals supported in terms of rights and democracy, but morally found it essential to follow through completely and acceptably. Hitch’s actual support of the war in Iraq often left him labeled as a ‘neo conservative’ a statement he boldly defined, humorously labeling himself as a‘non neo conservative’. Hence, his approach of torture and the use of water boarding, a method that he supported for five years before his personal experiment. Hitchens utilizes his own fear of the unknown in what his experience may be to drive us to fear the same thing. American society speaks about recognizing and appreciation the world around us, but traditionally has a habit of taking on an out of sight out of mind mentality, believing they do not have the time or ability to deal with the issue. Yet by transcending what the thought of unknown may mean for our country as a whole makes the reader realize its criticalness. Initially water boarding was used to introduce Special Forces to what they may experience if captured in wars across the Middle East. The idea of determining if such methods are truly torture, come from the realization that we, as Americans, use such methods.

Waterboarding Experiment

            This is the Hitchens I love, passionately through demonstration, utilizing a frightening truth found in water boarding- that the ‘stimulation’ that one drowning is incorrect- one is actually drowning. Hitchens, actually disappointed in his first time, did the simulation a second time, only to be told that in both experiences he never uttered a single world to stop it, rather he did the dead man limp, signaling preemptive unconsciousness. Hitchens reveals insight into the water boarding experience, that “… I am somewhat proud of my ability to ‘keep my head’ as the saying goes, and to maintain presence of mind under trying circumstances…I was briefly embarrassed that I hadn’t earned or warranted these refinements, but it hit me yet again that this is certainly the language of torture…” (Believe Me, It's Torture). For me, and a majority of our society, should respect such a man for exposing to us just how serious this is. Hitchens has propelled the argument on the issue, drawing on the language of torture, using himself as the object, who the reader understands to be a daring assertive journalist that does not sway in his ways. Knowing that Americans will always say there are two sides of an issue, Hitchens uses a veteran’s point of view -‘water boarding’ as foreplay to actual torture, considering it a positive aspect, compared to an anti-torture expert Malcolm Nance, who has formulated a true argument of four key points. Nance explained water boarding as a deliberate torture technique that has ultimately opened the door to what is next and that opening the door to allow water boarding only allows the torture methods to ultimately lead to thumbscrews and electrodes.

            Hitchens has set my mind running to determine what water boarding as torture really means from two ends of the spectrum, on the understanding that most of us lie in the middle believing that it is good in certain situations so we can get into the minds of potential and current terrorists, but not completely morally acceptable. Hitchens hits it head on though by allowing himself to be the subject and assume the role of the ultimate example to the media after personally experiencing it. Allowing him to have definitively made the distinction between the idea of what it means to train for something and training to resist something. How can we allow such acts to be inflicted upon others, in the hopes of receiving information, when our own citizens state that the information out of their mouths is frivolous? Criticizing the information, which we extract in these situations, as mostly irrelevant, proven from his experience to babble and the documentation of what has been discovered from other sources, is critical to describing his experience as explicitly torture. Hitchens does not deny the effectiveness of the practice ignorantly, removed from our country, rather as a concerned United States citizen. He warily stated that he had, “... a very slight encounter on that frontier, but I still wish that my experience were the only way in which the words “water board” and “American” could be mentioned in the same (gasping and sobbing) breath” (Believe Me, It's Torture). A different side of Hitchens, nearly pleading that we take his experience as a critical example in the view and stance we take on the issue, by presenting the best case he can to his readers, in true Hitchens style.

            Christopher Hitchens affected a wide audience that praised him for his fearless approach, as well as criticized him for his beliefs, but was always respected. Whether he was attacking a major religious figure, such as Mother Teresa, or taking on headfirst a controversial issue in our military system, he is fearless. Frequently allowing his emotions, generally screaming and anger, to get the best of him-both comical and offensive at times- he never ceased to amaze. Hitchens was unwavering, an attribute that is both commendable and daunting at times, based upon the argument he was making, striving for his readers and listeners to question the norm-challenge the status quo as he had. A person has truly left a legacy, when such commendable words are shared about him postmortem and he continues to affect the political realm despite his diminished presence. Hitch had an effect on all who read his ruthless argumentative essays even if only making them think about what they were reading, he had achieved his goal. I hope that others continue in his fearless footsteps, not just to simulate journalism as Hitch did, but for the sake of our country, and bridging the gap between scholars and the normal consumer. Because according to Hitch, “The progress that's made ... in any argument or in any discussion is by confrontation. That's a dialectical fact. People say "oh let's have less heat and more light," fatuously. There's only one source of light. It happens to be heat” (Christopher Hitchens Quotes).