Denialism.com - A resource for countering denialist organizations, tactics and arguments. Don't Confuse Denialism with Debate!
About Denialism.com Who are we?What is Denialism? Who are the Denialists? The Denialist Deck of Cards
|
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
The Evolution of a Crank
I'd rather avoid most political issues with this blog, but reading Christopher Hitchens' column in slate is almost a perfect case study in the evolution of a crank.
You start out with Hitchens pre-9/11. Liberal, strong-minded, but generally acknowledged to be a thorough researcher, and an excellent if eccentric analyst (he probably made no friends with Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice). My favorite was The Trial of Henry Kissinger. But with 9/11 something happened to Hitch. He started writing about the war in Iraq like it was intimately related to the war on terror, defended the president's rationale, and subsequently has continued to defend the administration's actions long after it has become clear that they created a total disaster. Not only does he defend them though, he seems to have totally lost all perspective, he doesn't seem to be able to accept facts that contradict his opinion, and has essentially become a crank. His latest column in Slate is another one of these post hoc justifications for the war, now the story is that Iraq would have collapsed into civil war eventually anyway, so it's not really the fault of the invasion and occupation. Whether or not you think this rationalization is totally crazy, it fits with the generalized pattern of an evolving crank. Remember the story of how he flipped out at a dinner party after someone refused to be critical of Howard Dean? (That link by the way has a compelling argument for this evolution of Hitch). Or these columns in which he says Al Qaeda is desparate and did us a "favor" on 9/11, Abu Ghraib wasn't bad (because Saddam was worse), not to mention flipping off studio audiences and his somewhat insane defense of the administration's outing of Valerie Plame. Whether or not you agree with the war, it should be possible to agree that Hitch's pattern of behavior has gotten progressively more and more irrational, to the point where there's only one word left to describe him. Hitch has become a crank. How did this happen? Ezra Klein's explanation is that Hitch latched onto this war as a kind of "great moment" in history and he decided he was going to be on the right side of it no matter what. This desire to be "right" no matter what the facts say, might be a critical component of crank formation. As the facts evolve and show that occupying Iraq has been a disaster, Hitch can't let go of his initial hypothesis because he believes fervently that he was right or in the rightness of the war on terror as a whole. In his mind the facts be damned, this is a war for our existence and nothing should stop our execution of it. At some point we may have to start talking about how defenders of this war have become denialists. There is something fundamentally dishonest about the people who suggest that everything in Iraq is going fine, conditions are improving, or that make patently false claims like Iraq is safer than Detroit to try to diminish the significance of the daily violence in that country. As I've said though, I'd rather avoid have the definition of denialism devolve into one that simply describes those that oppose your ideas which is how people would see an attack on the Iraq war supporters using that label. It really is about how people fudge debates, hide facts and deceptively argue positions that the facts do not support. T These days, Hitch has started arguing like a denialist though. And his behavior, and his protection of an overvalued idea (that the war was right and good no matter what), have unfortunately turned him into an unreasonable man. It's a case study in the evolution of a crank. Labels: Christopher Hitchens, general discussion |
Denialism (n): the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none.
NY Times LA Times The Guardian BBC News SF Gate WSJ Science Links NatureScience NEJM JCI PLOS Biology PLOS Medicine Science Blogs A Blog Around the ClockAetiology Bad Science Conspiracy Factory Deltoid Give Up Blog Good Math, Bad Math The Intersection Pharyngula Respectful Insolence The Scienceblogs network Anti-Denialist Autism/Mercury Autism DivaNeurodiversity Bronze Dog Not Mercury Evolution The Panda's ThumbPharyngula Sandwalk Evolgen Evo Wiki Talk Reason The Talk Origins Archive Global Warming Real ClimateA Few Things Ill-Considered How to talk to a sceptic (AFTIC) Deltoid Stoat ClimateDenial Daily Grist Integrity of Science HIV/AIDS AetiologyAIDStruth.org AIDS.org AIDSmyth The Body - on denialists Alternative Medicine Respectful InsolenceCSICOP QuackWatch What alternative health practitioners might not tell you Skeptico NCCAM 9/11 Conspiracy busting Scientific AmericanPopular Mechanics Screwloosechange Debunking 9/11 Orac's Deconstruction Animal Testing Animal Crackers (archives) Research Defense Blog AnimalRights.net Pro-Test General Skepticism SkepticoConspiracy Factory Geek Counterpoint Photon in the Darkness Bad Science Respectful Insolence CSICOP Snopes Wiki Denialism Wiki
resources |
7 Comments:
I'd like to push back the day 0 of Hitchens' becoming a crank. Please recall that during the Clinton administration, he was a fanatical Clinton hater, who believed any and all stories about them.
- Barry
April 24, 2007 8:24 AM,
Hitchens has been a self absorbed asshole for ages. Occasionally when his madness intersects with a favorable point of view we can conveniently ignore his meanderings, but come on...
Let's see if any Democrats warm to him in some way. In that way, he's a useful thermometer to measure the temperature of others.
April 24, 2007 9:40 AM,
No doubt, he's always been an asshole, but has ever been so completely unreasonable?
His Clinton hatred is probably epitomized by that book "No one left to lie to" which really was a smear. But a lot of people gave Clinton a lot of crap because we really didn't have a truly bad president to compare him to. And just because he smeared the Clintons didn't make him a crank.
I think he's a crank now because he refuses to accept reality. Every asshole isn't a crank, and I won't dispute he was a major asshole, but when did he lose his grasp with reality? I think it was 9/11 when he developed this idea that we are in a struggle for our very survival.
Like I said yesterday, growing up during the cold war, I'll take terrorism over complete anhilation any day of the week. He seems to have given our enemies too much credit.
April 24, 2007 11:13 AM,
My sister predicted he wasn't really liberal in the mid 90's and his articles were going to descend into madness. Now she says "I told you so."
April 24, 2007 2:09 PM,
"And just because he smeared the Clintons didn't make him a crank."
No, but the eager acceptance of any lie that supported his viewpoint, even if debunked; the eager working with paid liars; those make him a denialist.
- Barry
April 24, 2007 3:02 PM,
Hmm, the consensus doesn't seem to support Hitch as a good example since clearly he had crank-like markings for a long time.
My only point was, that despite being an asshole, and stodgy and anti-Clinton etc., he still didn't argue from a separate set of facts. These days I read his articles and just think "cherry-picking, illogical, illogical, cherry-picking, conspiracy theory (like Democrats won't support the war because they hate Bush) etc. I don't see any reasoned argument any more, just vituperation and hissy fits.
April 24, 2007 3:11 PM,
The Iraq program is going fine. The goal, as the DoD revealed in the spring, is to split the country into 3, along ethnic lines, with puppet governments in each. And to establish the 14 forward bases for "force projection" in the (ie the ability to shoot the shit out of) Persian Gulf.
To subjugate a country, you have to find the latent fault lines, ethnic, religious or what have you, drive in a wedge and get the people there to fight among themselves. This is how Cortez and a thousand soldiers brought the Aztec empire to heel, and this is how a couple hundred thousand Americans are bringing Iraq to heel.
The presence of violence is not a sign that a war has failed. War is the application of violence to impose your will on an adversary.
The "Iraq is a failure" theme is pure government propaganda.
As Sun Tzu wrote, "To succeed, you must appear to fail."
August 30, 2007 3:19 AM,
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home