Whatever you think of Hitchens, this an excellent, understated article. Highly recommended for anyone who contributed to the thread on First World War histories.

Sometimes I wonder if Slate knows that they’re being ripped off by Christopher Hitchens.  After all, he’s been writing the same two columns for while now: either he complains about how oppressive it is that he has to share space with religious people, or he’s blasting liberals for not being “serious” enough to support the indiscriminate killing of Arabs and/or Muslims.  This week’s column is in the latter category:

But spastic missiles and low-yield nukes can still ruin the whole day of a neighboring state, as well as make a travesty of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and such international laws and treaties as are left to us. Thus, if it is true that Iran is not as close to “break-out” as we have sometimes feared, should that not make our deliberations more urgent rather than less? Might it not mean, in effect, that now is a better time to disarm the mullahs than later?

The rest of the column continues along these lines: “if liberals are opposed to attacks on repressive regimes on the basis of potential harm to us, then said liberals should support an attack earlier on in the timeline, when said regimes are relatively weaker.”  As Matt Steinglass correctly points out, this is nonsense – both on its merits and as a characterization of liberal opposition to the United States’ various foreign interventions.  Liberal opposition to the Iraq War – to use one notable instance – wasn’t rooted in any fear of “the awesome power” that Saddam Hussein had at hand.  It was based in two perfectly sensible observations: first, Saddam Hussein had done nothing that would warrant military retaliation, thus making the entire project illegal and immoral, and second, our utopian plan to build a stable, democratic Iraq was doomed to failure, if only because the United States doesn’t have the capacity or the power to completely transform a society from the ground up.  Steinglass’ take is worth quoting here:

Those of us who didn’t want to invade Iraq tended to focus on the fact that invading a country that hasn’t attacked you, or really even done anything that would constitute a legitimate provocation, is illegal, because it’s illegal, and immoral, because it entails killing a lot of people (including children) for no good reason, and foolish, because it leads to consequences that may spiral horrifically out of control in unpredictable ways.

Furthermore, Hitchen’s logic simply doesn’t hold up*.  We aren’t required to attack Iran because it is relatively weaker; the fact that Iran isn’t strong enough to retaliate in any meaningful way only means that attacking is a slightly more viable option among many other options.  Diplomacy is still feasible, as are sanctions and what not.

That said, I’m always amused/deeply depressed by what counts as “acceptable” in our elite discourse.  It is perfectly OK for Christopher Hitchens – or anyone, really – to euphemistically call for the indiscriminate slaughter of thousands of civilians.  Indeed, doing so marks you as a serious member of the political elite.  This point has been made many times before, but there has not – and never will be – any social or professional sanction for the scores of pundits who clamored for the United States to go to war in Iraq.  And in the case of someone like Bill Kristol, who bears direct responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, their enthusiasm was met with overwhelming professional success.  By contrast, you are liable to be permanently banished from respectable circles if you so much as suggest that war for war’s sake is deeply immoral, if not a bad idea.

Indeed, the same goes for a whole host of critical issues.  When a group of overly-parochial, self-interested politicians work together to block climate change legislation, they are lauded by most in the news media as courageous moderates.  But in reality, it might be more accurate to describe them as borderline sociopaths.  After all, their actions – or lack thereof – will directly contribute to the preventable deaths of tens of millions of people who had the misfortune of A) being born deeply impoverished and B) living near the coast.  That they show almost no remorse about this is deeply troubling and absolutely reprehensible, to say the least.  Roughly 45,000 Americans will die for lack of health insurance, and its treated as a minor data-point rather than the big fucking deal that it is.

I honestly don’t really know where I’m going with this.  The short of it is that I am very – very – tired of our political culture’s moral glibness.  I’m tired of people who treat politics as a game to be won and loss and not as a serious endeavor with real consequences for real people.  And I’m tired of watching brave voices – from across the political spectrum – get pushed aside for refusing to treat politics as a game.  As it stands, if you use your influence to push our system to do right by its citizens, then you’re dismissed as naive or “shill.”  But if you have the courage and integrity to defend the government’s campaign of torture and disappearance, or solemnly advocate for the indiscriminate slaughter of brown people, then well, God better watch out because the sky’s the limit.

</end tirade>

As far as I can tell, this is the best story going on the web right now. My fiancee and I were nearly assaulted in the parking lot of our local organic food market by some road raged dude who snapped because I was going to “steal his spot”. But the cajones on Hitchens, seriously, I have a new found respect for the man, arrogant though he often is. It’s like he shows Arnold Schwarzenegger how to be the Schwarzenegger of politics.

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.