Christopher Hitchens: A D.C. Requiem

The fawning homages triggered by the prolific polemicist’s death missed the true tragedy of his later career.

Chris Lehmann

“We become fully ourselves only through the ever-richening interplay of our networks.”—David Brooks, The Social Animal (Photo by: Ryan J. Lane)

The impulse to memorialize says as much about the survivors as the departed — and so the confessional frenzy of establishment journalists to mark the passing of Christopher Hitchens, who died of cancer in December, bears some discomfiting scrutiny. Within hours of the news of Hitchens’ death, the online world lit up with fond, nostalgic appreciations — all bearing testimony to the largeness of the man’s intellect and alcoholic stamina, his fiercely iconoclastic spirit and his comradely conviviality. 

Hitchens' ever-shifting rationale for the Iraq war was a textbook study in the situational evasion of unpleasant truths that is the protective coloration of the practiced D.C. pundit.

All of which was true. Like many Washington journalists, I was friendly with Hitchens. Despite our disagreements, he was a charming and unfailingly gracious soul. The graceless world of Washington journalism is diminished enormously with his passing. 

This doesn’t explain, however, the obsessive onrush of Hitchens remembrances that D.C. media hands produced in the wake of his death — nor the curious uniformity of their panegyrics. The typical Hitchens homage described a boozy, marathon social gathering and a rueful evocation of the now-vanished golden time that had produced such an outsized, contrarian character. 

Among other things, the cottage industry in Hitchens-iana pointed up a wish fulfillment fantasy for Washington’s retinue of pundits for hire and political gossips: Here, it said in essence, was a colorful, impassioned giant in our midst — a latter-day Samuel Johnson. Let our city and our profession bask in his reflected glory.

The trouble is that such beguiling fancies omit a universe or two of causation. It was not that Hitchens’ life was a joyous, Falstaff-style incarnation of the vocation awaiting a brilliant Washington writer. Regretfully, I’d suggest instead that the tragedy of Hitchens’ later career was not that he defined the Washington spirit, but rather he had grown captive to it. Hitchens’ dead-end support for the dishonest and deadly U.S. invasion of Iraq is the most obvious case in point. His ever-shifting rationale for the war — from the imminence of Saddam Hussein’s WMD arsenal to the shameful neglect of the Kurds to the desperately urgent confrontation with Islamofascism” — was a textbook study in the situational evasion of unpleasant truths that is the protective coloration of the practiced D.C. pundit. 

One encounter with Hitchens during the early aughts seemed to signal that this shift was under way. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Hitchens published his own defining appreciation of the outsized contrarian who bore the deepest imprint on his own career: Why Orwell Matters. I was invited to a gathering of the city’s journalists to discuss the book — hosted by BMW in a luxe downtown conference room.

As Hitchens wound down his book talk and the floor opened for questions, I asked what he thought Orwell, the arch critic of the political abuse of language, would make of the locution preventive war” — then, of course, the mantra of the neocon crowd urging on the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime. I think preventive war’ is telling it like it is,” he announced. And I think Orwell would recognize that.”

I should have offered some kind of counter-parry, but I just couldn’t. Something about the whole scene — the sad corporate conference space, the arid mood of self-congratulation — plunged me into despair. There were certainly other, far more shameless moral and intellectual lapses that came hard upon the Bush administration’s experiment in preventive warfare, but this moment stayed with me. And while I continued to remain cordial with Hitchens, and to admire a good deal of his genuinely brilliant published work, I couldn’t help but think that his contrarianism” — that vastly overrated, putative Washington virtue — was harming his writing. The book he regarded as his proudest achievement — the atheist polemic God Is Not Great—too often read to me like debate-club score-settling. 

I write this in sorrow, not anger; I have fond memories of Hitchens that speak volumes about his devotion to his friends, his fraternal spirit, his restless intellect and his love of family. But I can’t shake the idea that the journalistic establishment that has wept so conspicuously over Hitchens’ loss contributed in no small way to the dying of his light.

Please consider supporting our work.

I hope you found this article important. Before you leave, I want to ask you to consider supporting our work with a donation. In These Times needs readers like you to help sustain our mission. We don’t depend on—or want—corporate advertising or deep-pocketed billionaires to fund our journalism. We’re supported by you, the reader, so we can focus on covering the issues that matter most to the progressive movement without fear or compromise.

Our work isn’t hidden behind a paywall because of people like you who support our journalism. We want to keep it that way. If you value the work we do and the movements we cover, please consider donating to In These Times.

Chris Lehmann, is editor-in-chief at The Baffler and a former managing editor of In These Times. He is the author of The Money Cult: Capitalism, Christianity, and the Unmaking of the American Dream (Melville House, 2016).
Illustrated cover of Gaza issue. Illustration shows an illustrated representation of Gaza, sohwing crowded buildings surrounded by a wall on three sides. Above the buildings is the sun, with light shining down. Above the sun is a white bird. Text below the city says: All Eyes on Gaza
Get 10 issues for $19.95

Subscribe to the print magazine.