Hitchens Comes Through

Slate is running an article by Chris Hitchens--one of the crankiest and most talented writers you are bound to read--that asks a simple question: "Who should the Democrats nominate?" He gives his impression and thoughts on all of the remaining candidates, and those thoughts are funny as hell. These thoughts are bound to make people on the right uncomfortable, as he manages some level of praise for Kucinich and Clark; these thoughts are bound to make people on the left uncomfortable, as his wrap-up is avowedly pro-Bush.

Of course, Hitchens' talent for skewering all, regardless of party affiliation, is one of the fun things about reading him. You never know whether you'll end up cheering his article or wanting to slap him lightly upside the head.

On Dean, he had this:

With this in mind, one reviews the current Democratic "field." I claim no prescience for predicting the implosion of Howard Dean: He was obviously very lucky to get as far as the governorship of Vermont. A man who will say anything to any audience if he thinks it will raise the roof is a candidate to be shunned: It should have been all over when he trashed his Hippocratic oath to invent a story about an incest victim from his physician's office. Think of all the money he raised and squandered: It would have been far better spent donated to the reconstruction of Iraq. His entire campaign was, to borrow one of his sillier slogans, a distraction from the hunt for al-Qaida.

But on Kucinich, he says this:

Dennis Kucinich is the sort of guy who we need in politics. He thinks long-term, and he doesn't think that in the short or long term it pays to trade principles for compromises. That's the attitude one wants in a president, of any party. This, however, is probably not the year for a man who basically believes in the downsizing of the United States.

I happen to actually agree with both of these statements. Qualify that, though, by saying that I think we need more people of Kucinich's caliber in office--people devoted to principle and long-term planning. What we don't need is Kucinich, as his politics run contrary to allowing the United States to be a great nation, a leader in the world, and a force for good when no one else is willing to act.

So, what is Hitchens' advice, in the end? While he does come through with a specific suggestion for the Democrats (and a pretty good one, at that), he prefaces it with what I consider the best advice possible.

I'm a single-issue person at present, and the single issue in case you are wondering is the tenacious and unapologetic defense of civilized societies against the intensifying menace of clerical barbarism. If in the smallest doubt about this, I would suggest a vote for the re-election of George Bush, precisely because he himself isn't prey to any doubt on the point. There are worse things than simple mindedness—pseudo-intellectuality, for example. Civil unions for homosexuals, or prescription-drug programs, are not even going to be in second or third place if we get this wrong. And presidents can't make much difference to the stock market or the employment rate or to income distribution. But they can and must uphold their oath to defend the country.

And that's about the face of the decision to me: who do I trust to secure me for the future so that Social Security, Medicare, fair taxation, and school vouchers can be the issues that drive my choices again? Until those are first and foremost in my mind, until I feel we've beaten back an enemy who is tenacious and vicious, the choice of leadership to me is clear.

Read the rest.

Posted by zombyboy at February 9, 2004 10:24 AM | TrackBack