Hitchens On Steyn: The Most Important Essay You'll Read This Year
NOTICE: New Sisyphus has undergone technical difficulties due to Blogger's switch to Google-based accounts. A temporary work-around has been discovered, and regular posting resumes with this new post.
When I heard from a friend that Christopher Hitchens had published a review of Mark Steyn's new book America Alone on City Journal's website , I about ran down my poor wife getting to her laptop computer to read it. (Sorry, honey).
You can find it
If you follow politics at all, you know that such a formulation has, literally, the number one best writer and case-maker the Left has to offer passing a review on the number one best writer and case-maker the Right has to offer. You just don't find that happening every day.
The results are riveting. Having devoured the essay in one quick gulp, followed by two close readings, I have to say that to the extent Hitchens offers any criticism of Steyn and his book, I agree with them. In order, the major objections Hitchens raises are:
1) Steyn's posing as a lone voice Cassandra is unnecessarily tiresome and misstates the case a bit as the West and its elites are steadily waking up to the danger.
2) Steyn's reliance on demographic arguments overstates the case a bit, but only a bit.
3) Islam is not monolithic and Steyn does not account for Muslims in Europe who disagree with Islamofascism.
4) Steyn's "ten-point program" at the end of his book appears a bit cobbled together and not at all well thought out.
You may think that that is some rough stuff, but you'd be mistaken. (Indeed, Steyn's own website makes too much of Hitchens' criticism). Aside from Number 3 above, none are very important. Number 1 has more to do with stylistic and personality differences between the author and the reviewer (and the fact that Hitchens is friends with some of the Euro intellectuals Steyn beats the stuffing out of), Number 2 is obvious to most readers, and Number 4 is sadly accurate. As for Number 3....that's an argument for another day.
No, the criticism is not what is important here. What is important is that between these two men, as between our Left and Right writ large, there are wide swathes of common ground. In fact, by taking on the "ten-point program" Hitchens has done us a huge favor by setting forth not only a realistic strategy, but one that could, given proper and imaginative leadership, unite most Americans and even some Europeans.
Hitchens' program strikes me as hitting all the right notes, holding up the bare bones principles that all who believe in liberalism (small "l") should have no difficulty rallying around.
I urge you in the strongest possible terms to read the entire essay, but, for now, here are Hitchens' ten action items:
There is much there that all sides can agree on.
In other words, the leading man of the Left has met the leading man of the Right and they've walked away from the encounter almost shoulder-to-shoulder. This says something about our continued vitality and our prospects. The obvious objection is that Hitchens is "no longer of the Left", but for reasons too complicated to go into here, I do not believe that this is the case. I believe his thought is still solidly leftist in outlook and his values, if mobilized correctly, would rally a significant portion of the American and Euro Left.
Today, intellectually, the stage is being set for Western solidarity and the dumping of the multi-culti suicide cult alliance with the Islamic Fascist death cult. In the future, we will all reap the benefits.
As a final matter, note that his discussion is only possible in the United States. In Britain, Canada, France and Germany, frank discussion of matters relating to Islam is constrained by anti-freedom "hate speech" codes and disagreement-criminalizing "human rights commissions."
We should all be on our knees, every one of us, thanking Jefferson and the founders for understanding the importance of our natural right to full and complete free speech.
It is ultimately our most important weapon, by far.
When I heard from a friend that Christopher Hitchens had published a review of Mark Steyn's new book America Alone on City Journal's website , I about ran down my poor wife getting to her laptop computer to read it. (Sorry, honey).
You can find it
here
If you follow politics at all, you know that such a formulation has, literally, the number one best writer and case-maker the Left has to offer passing a review on the number one best writer and case-maker the Right has to offer. You just don't find that happening every day.
The results are riveting. Having devoured the essay in one quick gulp, followed by two close readings, I have to say that to the extent Hitchens offers any criticism of Steyn and his book, I agree with them. In order, the major objections Hitchens raises are:
1) Steyn's posing as a lone voice Cassandra is unnecessarily tiresome and misstates the case a bit as the West and its elites are steadily waking up to the danger.
2) Steyn's reliance on demographic arguments overstates the case a bit, but only a bit.
3) Islam is not monolithic and Steyn does not account for Muslims in Europe who disagree with Islamofascism.
4) Steyn's "ten-point program" at the end of his book appears a bit cobbled together and not at all well thought out.
You may think that that is some rough stuff, but you'd be mistaken. (Indeed, Steyn's own website makes too much of Hitchens' criticism). Aside from Number 3 above, none are very important. Number 1 has more to do with stylistic and personality differences between the author and the reviewer (and the fact that Hitchens is friends with some of the Euro intellectuals Steyn beats the stuffing out of), Number 2 is obvious to most readers, and Number 4 is sadly accurate. As for Number 3....that's an argument for another day.
No, the criticism is not what is important here. What is important is that between these two men, as between our Left and Right writ large, there are wide swathes of common ground. In fact, by taking on the "ten-point program" Hitchens has done us a huge favor by setting forth not only a realistic strategy, but one that could, given proper and imaginative leadership, unite most Americans and even some Europeans.
Hitchens' program strikes me as hitting all the right notes, holding up the bare bones principles that all who believe in liberalism (small "l") should have no difficulty rallying around.
I urge you in the strongest possible terms to read the entire essay, but, for now, here are Hitchens' ten action items:
1. An end to one-way multiculturalism and to the cultural masochism that goes with it. The Koran does not mandate the wearing of veils or genital mutilation, and until recently only those who apostasized from Islam faced the threat of punishment by death. Now, though, all manner of antisocial practices find themselves validated in the name of religion, and mullahs have begun to issue threats even against non-Muslims for criticism of Islam. This creeping Islamism must cease at once, and those responsible must feel the full weight of the law. Meanwhile, we should insist on reciprocity at all times. We should not allow a single Saudi dollar to pay for propaganda within the U.S., for example, until Saudi Arabia also permits Jewish and Christian and secular practices. No Wahhabi-printed Korans anywhere in our prison system. No Salafist imams in our armed forces.
2. A strong, open alliance with India on all fronts, from the military to the political and economic, backed by an extensive cultural exchange program, to demonstrate solidarity with the other great multiethnic democracy under attack from Muslim fascism. A hugely enlarged quota for qualified Indian immigrants and a reduction in quotas from Pakistan and other nations where fundamentalism dominates.
3. A similarly forward approach to Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, and the other countries of Western Africa that are under attack by jihadists and are also the location of vast potential oil reserves, whose proper development could help emancipate the local populations from poverty and ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
4. A declaration at the UN of our solidarity with the right of the Kurdish people of Iraq and elsewhere to self-determination as well as a further declaration by Congress that in no circumstance will Muslim forces who have fought on our side, from the Kurds to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, find themselves friendless, unarmed, or abandoned. Partition in Iraq would be defeat under another name (and as with past partitions, would lead to yet further partitions and micro-wars over these very subdivisions). But if it has to come, we cannot even consider abandoning the one part of the country that did seize the opportunity of modernization, development, and democracy.
5. Energetic support for all the opposition forces in Iran and in the Iranian diaspora. A public offer from the United States, disseminated widely in the Persian language, of help for a reformed Iran on all matters, including peaceful nuclear energy, and of assistance in protecting Iran from the catastrophic earthquake that seismologists predict in its immediate future. Millions of lives might be lost in a few moments, and we would also have to worry about the fate of secret underground nuclear facilities. When a quake leveled the Iranian city of Bam three years ago, the performance of American rescue teams was so impressive that their popularity embarrassed the regime. Iran's neighbors would need to pay attention, too: a crisis in Iran's nuclear underground facilities-an Iranian Chernobyl-would not be an internal affair. These concerns might help shift the currently ossified terms of the argument and put us again on the side of an internal reform movement within Iran and its large and talented diaspora.
6. Unconditional solidarity, backed with force and the relevant UN resolutions, with an independent and multi-confessional Lebanon.
7. A commitment to buy Afghanistan's opium crop and to keep the profits out of the hands of the warlords and Talibanists, until such time as the country's agriculture- especially its once-famous vines-has been replanted and restored. We can use the product in the interim for the manufacture of much-needed analgesics for our own market and apply the profits to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
8. We should, of course, be scrupulous on principle about stirring up interethnic tensions. But we should remind those states that are less scrupulous-Iran, Pakistan, and Syria swiftly come to mind-that we know that they, too, have restless minorities and that they should not make trouble in Afghanistan, Lebanon, or Iraq without bearing this in mind. Some years ago, the Pakistani government announced that it would break the international embargo on the unrecognized and illegal Turkish separatist state in Cyprus and would appoint an ambassador to it, out of "Islamic solidarity." Cyprus is a small democracy with no armed forces to speak of, but its then-foreign minister told me the following story. He sought a meeting with the Pakistani authorities and told them privately that if they recognized the breakaway Turkish colony, his government would immediately supply funds and arms to one of the secessionist movements-such as the Baluchis-within Pakistan itself. Pakistan never appointed an ambassador to Turkish Cyprus.
There is much there that all sides can agree on.
In other words, the leading man of the Left has met the leading man of the Right and they've walked away from the encounter almost shoulder-to-shoulder. This says something about our continued vitality and our prospects. The obvious objection is that Hitchens is "no longer of the Left", but for reasons too complicated to go into here, I do not believe that this is the case. I believe his thought is still solidly leftist in outlook and his values, if mobilized correctly, would rally a significant portion of the American and Euro Left.
Today, intellectually, the stage is being set for Western solidarity and the dumping of the multi-culti suicide cult alliance with the Islamic Fascist death cult. In the future, we will all reap the benefits.
As a final matter, note that his discussion is only possible in the United States. In Britain, Canada, France and Germany, frank discussion of matters relating to Islam is constrained by anti-freedom "hate speech" codes and disagreement-criminalizing "human rights commissions."
We should all be on our knees, every one of us, thanking Jefferson and the founders for understanding the importance of our natural right to full and complete free speech.
It is ultimately our most important weapon, by far.
