Christopher Hitchens was one of my many imaginary boyfriends for about three years before he died (and still is; I suspect he always will be). I didn’t always agree with what he said, but his voice was so distinctive, his thoughts so clear, that I was always eager to hear how he articulated them. His style was perfect: calm, witty. His aim was true.
I’ve watched just about every one of his debates and interviews on YouTube; I am partial to the debates. We in America are actually not exposed very often to honest debates. Traditionally, a debate has a motion and each side puts forth his best arguments for or against it. There is a thrust and parry,a genuine exchange of ideas. Presidential debates are basically press conferences in which each candidate has his own parochial concerns and simply recites his talking points. The candidates are expressly forbidden to speak to each other; they must go through the moderator. This makes no sense at all. It doesn’t clarify the issue for either side or for the audience. And late night tv programs in which guests yell back and forth is not a debate either; it is the adult equivalent of a schoolyard shoving match.
Trials, however, are the only place two people can actually spar back and forth. It is not a perfect analogy of a debate, but it is at least something. It satisfies a need to hear people actually discuss an issue instead of screeching incomprehensibly. This might be why I am so fascinated by them.
Besides trials, the only time I’ve seen actual good debates are when Hitch gets up there and starts talking about “celestial North Korea” and “Biblical myths” and so on. Again: don’t always agree with him, but there is something beautifully compelling about the way he will argue his ideas. His freshness, his nonpareil use of language, his historical reach are all just wonderful to witness.
I was talking the other day with a friend and realized that Enron is literally the only subject I believe I could competently debate with Christopher Hitchens. I think I could hold my own in a real debate with him. I would be scared speechless, but once I finally came out of the shock, I could probably put forth some ideas he might go for or walk him backward into a corner.
The desire to discuss Enron with intelligent people – even if it can’t be Hitch – is why I have my blog. It is why I delete the comments of morons who blather a series of insults. That kind of nonsense is boring to me. If you’re going to say something about Enron, for god’s sake, make it interesting and compelling. The subject deserves that respect.
