Hitchens Hits a Homer
I know, I know: this is the guy who trashed Mother Teresa. But he has a devilish knack for pricking the pieties of both left and right — and the man can write!
So in today’s Wall Street Journal on “The Perils of Identity Politics” he concludes:
Not to dampen any parade, but if one asks if there is a single thing about Mr. Obama’s Senate record, or state legislature record, or current program, that could possibly justify his claim to the presidency one gets . . . what? Not much. Similarly lightweight unqualified “white” candidates have overcome this objection, to be sure, but what kind of standard is that?
I shall not vote for Sen. Obama and it will not be because he — like me and like all of us — carries African genes. And I shall not be voting for Mrs. Clinton, who has the gall to inform me after a career of overweening entitlement that there is “a double standard” at work for women in politics; and I assure you now that this decision of mine has only to do with the content of her character.
On multiple occasions, some of us who support Obama have tried to post examples of his legislative leadership and skills, only to have them ignored. I am not seeking agreement, just engagment. It does not take much writing skill to avoid an argument.
He is a gifted writer. But. Does he seriously think that genetic discoveries have evacuated the issue of race in America?
Obama’s qualification lies in his rare gift–the ability to inspire. And I say this as a Repuiblican who is not going to vote for him but who does find him inspirational and uplifting even when I disagree with his policies. That ability to inspire people is, I believe, an essential quality in any leader and one that is usually sorely lacking. True, Obama does not have “experience.” But so what. Two of our most experienced politicians–Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon–turned out to run terribly divisive and self-destructive administrations. Some of our least experienced politicians–Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy–turned out to rank among our best leaders (I know JFK is not considered “great” by some historians but he remains an influentual, inspirational figure decades after his three short years as president and that alone makes him stand out). Besides, we do not elect a president to be chief handyman, fixing all problems personally–we elect a chief executive who then surrounds himself/herself with the so-called “best and the brightest” to carry out the day-to-day functions of government. There, again, the ability to inspire, to lead, is just as important as familiarity with the minutae of drafting legislation, negotiating treaties, etc. That’s what the bureaucracy, the aides, the staff has always done and will continue to do (indeed, one of the worst examples of an experienced presidential meddling in things he should have left to others is when LBJ would personally pick targets to bomb in Vietnam)
As someone who admires George W Bush, I am nonetheless ready to admit that the last 16 or so years have been far too partisan, far too divisive, far too scandal-ridden, investigation-oriented, impeachment-seeking for the good of the country as a whole (even though it saw my party reach heights of power never before imagined). But I believe the country is definitely tired of such division and looking for leader who can truly bridge the current divide.
Personally, I think John McCain can do that and it’s why I support him. Hillary Clinton cannot–she is up to her eyeballs in the politics of the past 16 years. John Edwards is also too interested in us vs. them class warfare to even try. Huckabee is too divisive religiously; Romney slick, too orchestrated, too non-genuine to enjoy that sort of bipartisan appeal. But Obama has a chance to do it and that is all the qualification he needs.
Remember that old slogan, ‘friends do not let friends drive drunk?’ I like that it is a lived credo on this blog that Christians do not attempt by threat, intimidation or ridicule, to disenfranchise other Christians’ voices, not for politics, not for ideology, not for dogma. One can say what they want about the various disputes we see played out regularly, but at least no one has officially adopted Machiavelli in lieu of the voice of the Good Shepherd.
It burns me up when someone accuses a Democrat of “class warfare.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html?ex=1322197200&en=0cf877b05b918674&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
David,
You must be running a constant fever, then. Because the epithet certainly fits for John “Two Americas” Edwards … which, of course, is precisely why Edwards could never bridge that partisan divide.
I don’t think Hitchens is pricking pieties as much as he is–as always–championing his own interests. He is backing John Edwards (which he conveniently forgets to mention; though I believe he leans to McCain at times) and consequently he wants to find a way to make Edwards stand out. So he slams Clinton and Obama by proxy, because of how they look. Hitchens does not display charity or depth. He reduces two potentially groundbreaking figures to their epidermis and genitalia (and this from the writer who wrote recently a two-parter in Vanity Fair about his “sack-and-a-crack” wax as part of his makeover–but I don’t hold that against him, and it was funny). What he wants us to forget is that being black in America and being a woman in America are part of who Obama and Clinton are; these are roadblocks put up by society that they are seeking to overcome, and their struggles inform the way they look at the world, and at the struggles of others, which is what America is about in great measure–giving all a fair shot. (Edwards is in my opinion equally concerned with these issues, as anyone can be regardless of race. But GWB is a man of his upbringing, as we have seen.) The attacks Obama and Clinton have endured, and will endure (and will launch at each other, natch) are an evil that the election of either of them would go a long ways toward exorcising. Hitchens reduces Obama and Clinton voters to knee-jerk ID politics people. But the election of a president is more than just selecting a policy wonk, or a CEO. It is also a powerful statement about who we are as a country, and what we want to be.
I’d rate this one an infield single at best!
I’ve bashed Hitchens in the past, but let me take up for him now, especially against David Gibson. (I’m with David Nickol on the “class warfare” canard. I’d only add that we need more of it — from the other side.)
David — Hitchens doesn’t “reduce” Obama or Clinton to epidermis and genitalia. As he shows, that’s what people like Madeleine Albright are doing (“there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other” — as Hitchens asks, what does that suggest about Elizabeth Edwards?) And I also have to say that, judging from the people I know and/or work with, identity politics is very much driving support for Obama or Clinton. I’m almost invariably astonished at what their supporters — and I’m talking mainly about university faculty, people I work with every day — don’t know about their policy positions. Clinton’s case is especially alarming, as her working-class female supporters are endorsing a candidate who affirms the very corporate economic agenda that’s harming them and their husbands/fathers/partners/children.
You want a powerful statement about who we are as a country? Consider the possibility, amply confirmed by the support for corporate-friendly centrists like Clinton and Obama, that what a lot of people — even working-class people — really want IS a CEO. The idea of democracy as essentially akin to a business has a powerful hold on the imagination of millions of people.
I thought Bob meant the Greek Homer. . . or maybe Homer Simpson.
No doubt, lots of Obama and Clinton allies are playing the identity card. It’s not pretty. But I don’t think it fair for Hitchens to single out two candidates who arguably have the most reason to play that card when all the other candidates are doing the same thing. Rudy isn’t running to me the first Italian-American prez. He’s running to be President of 9/11. Huckabee is running as the favorite of white evangelicals (contra Catholics, at times). And so it goes. David Brooks’ column today gets at this inevitable bias we all have, and that candidates play on. No one knows what the candidates stand for in detail, and it’s not just our fault–few of them are saying anything in detail. So why single out the black guy and the white chick? Edwards is the poor milltown kid who made good and now makes millions for himself on their behalf. His wife’s cancer and their son’s death have all become part of their narrative. Again, why doesn’t he slam anyone else? He seems oddly selective.
Cathy,
You jest: even in snow-bound South Bend the reference to the national pass time must be perspicuous. It is subtly echoed in David’s employment of “slam” — as in “grand” — though perhaps he was thinking more “dunk.”
Still waiting.
I must also echo Grant’s good point about the nonsense that Christopher Hitchens is as African as Obama–the biology (or not) of race is a big debate. That one faces bias for the color of one’s skin is not. To argue otherwise requires a blind faith I would not expect from Mr. Hitchens. (Nor from a man who misted over at finding he had Jewish lineage.)
David Nickol-
Why does it burn you up when someone accuses a Democrat of “class warfare.”? I presume from the quote you chose to include that you feel hostilities have already begun and that you believe the wrong side is winning. So if you agree that class warfare is already taking place and you have an interest in seeing a certain side win, why are you angry when politicans advocate for victory by one side or another in the conflict?
David Gibson-
Of course Rudy is not running to be “the first Italian-American prez.” That is Hitchens point. The conservative movement (which I would not consider Rudy a part of but who he is clearly courting) has an entirely different worldview regarding identity politics from the other side of the ideological spectrum. An excellent example would be the Justice Alito nomination process (I would refer those who have any interest to the 11/15/2005 press release from NIAF titled “Stop Ethnic-Bashing” or their open letter placed in The New York Times of same date).
MAT,
I believe the concept of “class warfare” originated with Marx, and in my opinion, nothing vaguely resembling class warfare is taking place in the United States today. Crying “class warfare” is about as helpful as crying “amnesty” in the debate on immigration. In trying to discuss politics rationally, both should be avoided.
So I wouldn’t agree with Warren Buffett that there is “class warfare” and the rich are winning. However, I would say that the very rich people and the companies with powerful lobbies (like the drug companies) have too much power, and some of it should be taken away. If people want to argue with that idea, it’s fine by me. But just crying “class warfare” isn’t an argument.
Democrats are (rightfully) attacked for class warfare because not too long ago they were pushing for plans that defined as “wealthy”–and therefore, in the target of their taxation plans–people who were making approximately $50-60,000 a year. That’s pretty middle class by American standards, but not to the Democrats. In addition, when they claim that Bush’s tax cuts went to the “wealthy” they completely ignore the tax cuts (such as the per-child deduction) that have greatly benefited a great number of middle class parents. “Class warfare ” does not even encompass all the divisive approaches that the Democrats use to seek votes. Add to it “identity politics warfare” and “gender warfare” and “government dependency” warfare … the list goes on and on!
Okay. I jest.
Jim,
But didn’t McCain, whom I believe you said you are supporting, vote against the Bush tax cuts for just this reason?
Here is my belief about reactions to complaints about identity politics:
You have all heard the expression that you never notice when you are in the fast lane, you only notice when you are in the slow lane, and that’s why it always seems like you are in the slow lane.
You notice identity politics only when it concers someone whose identity is different from your own. When people love GWB because he is a white “pseudo” Southerner you don’t call it identity politics, you focus on some other aspect (oh, he’s so down to earth, or even better, I’d sure like to have a beer with him — why would you love to? Because he seems like someone you’d like — someone like yourself; yes, that is identity politics).
That’s why pundits “notice” identity politics regarding Clinton and Obama, and to a lesser extent Huckabee and not with regard to the others. Because the others are “whole people” — you know — white guys just like themselves.
That’s good, Barbara.
Hey, Barbara, fer a little lady yer pretty smart. And I bet yer purty, too!
:+)
I’m waiting with Joe Pettit, I guess.
I agree that Obama lacks experience, but that doesn’t necessarily means he lacks talent or acumen. I’d say that, at worst, he’s a wild card, but no more so than GWB.
Moreover, I don’t know what Hitchens means by Hillary’s “overweening entitlement.” I’m not a Hillari-anna, but how is she more “overweeningly entitled” than any other candidate?
Because I find this line of reasoning to be so disturbing I am going to add one more comment:
The unstated presumption underlying Hitchens’ article (as well as much other commentary on identity politics) is that white male politicians appeal neutrally to all constituents, or stated, differently, have “universal” appeal. The term “special interest” is itself loaded with this presumption. Women make up more than 50% of voters. How can women’s concerns be dismissed as special interests? There is only one answer: that the interests of “white men” are to be considered the norm, whereas the interests of voters who are women or black are “special,” strongly implying all the time that they are “unreasonable.”
This is just so wrong, all the more so for not being articulated or even examined.
Barbara,
I agree with your analysis, and I am glad that you are re-emphasizing the point. I will now add to your frustration mine at anyone like Hitchens who thinks that the absence of race in our genes means that race is not a socio-political phenomenon. Hitchens seems to be proud of himself, but he has only hit on something that many, many people have argued for some time; namely, that race does not exist at a biological level. Yet, it is quite rare for someone who denies the biological reality of race to also deny the socio-political reality of race. Hitchens, however, appears to be such a rarity.
In the tradition of Commonweal, I think that “This essay is not good.”
I believe Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens are pals. Andrew Sullivan has a quote from Orwell on his blog that reads
I hereby award the Orwell prize for seeing what is in front of all of our noses regarding “identity politics” to Barbara, and definitely not to Hitchens.
Jimmy Mac:
What in the world are you coming on with?
Bob: an obviously rather feeble attempt at cracker humor a la the type of voter that the Huckster is alleged to appeal to.
Did you not see the :+)?
JM:
That’s OK; all my attempts at humor are feeble.