“I Wish I’d Had a Screwdriver”
I spend a lot of time on this site talking about how we need to respect one another and that we ought to develop an ability for cross-ideological communication, all of which I do sincerely believe and will continue to argue. But there are times… there are times that call for the confidence, gusto, and stupidity to get yourself into situations like the one described in this story. Perhaps not against armed militants in Beruit, but there are times when in your face denouncement is the only acceptable response to some sets of beliefs.
In that regard, I still have a lot to learn from my more rhetorically pugilistic friends at the League.
(h/t: Sullivan)
Update: James Joyner is disapproving of my admiration for Hitchens’ actions,
Totten, choosing to jump in to defend his friend at the risk of his own life, was decidedly on the good side of that line. Hitchens, provoking a gang of thugs by an action that merely made him feel good but was likely to have no consequence in advancing liberty, was well on the wrong side.
As I made clear in the comments, it’s not that I think Hitchens’ actions were smart, per say. That’s why I suggested that actions of the like are often born of, “confidence, gusto, and stupidity“. But I do think that it’s a bit unfair to characterize Hitchens’ actions as merely a “childish stunt” designed to make him “feel good” and demonstrate how “badass” he is. Firstly, as Totten makes clear, Hitchens didn’t understand the gravity of what he was doing, it was only after the incident when Totten explained everything to Hitchens did he express any kind of badass attitude saying he would have done it anyhow. Neither did Hitchens know that his actions were being observed, it’s not as though a group of SSNP thugs were carrying a flag with a swastika down the street and Hitchens decided go get in their face about it.
Regardless, were I in Hitch’s shoes I probably wouldn’t have done what he did. But that partly informs my expressed admiration for Hicth’s decision. Most of us talk a good talk about our beliefs, but rarely are we forced to walk the walk in a demonstrable way. And when we are faced with that decision we often shy away, particularly where that decision involves confrontation. Hitchens is the exception and it shows that he’s thought his beliefs all the way through and beliefs them in a deep and abiding manner, I would argue. Aagin, as mention in the comments, I think it would do more of us some good to think our beliefs through in that fashion and be prepared to defend gross violations of those beliefs that would offend even the casual observer in such a steadfast manner.
Which is not, I should note, a call to arms, or even necessarily a call to confrontation. It is merely a call to rigorous intellectual honesty and thoughtfulness.
Update Redux: let us also bear in mind in regards to Hitchens being drunk, that Totten, who was there, wrote (emphasis mine),
Two days after the punch up, various factually inaccurate versions of the story made their way into the blogosphere. Everyone seemed to think we had been drinking or were in a bar fight. I was annoyed. Christopher was amused.
Granted, Totten doesn’t say, “People claim that Hitchens had been drinking, which he had not.” But the paragraph seems intended to clear up notions that this was merely the result of drunken shenanigans gone awry.
February 27, 2009 13 Comments
