Converting Across the Aisle

One of my favorite thinkers of our day is Christopher Hitchens.  Most of the time, he's very well-reasoned in his arguments and, even when he's off the mark, he's tight, biting and smarter than a god-damn whip.

Recently, he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer and has slowed his output as of late.  I usually watch him for his religious debates (brilliant, brilliant, brilliant!) and for his commentary on politics foreign and domestic.  I don't always agree with him, but I respect the hell out of him.

I always forget he reviews books and, this past weekend, reviewed the book from playwright/author David Mamet.  "The Secret Knowledge" is a book that discusses Mamet's "conversion" from liberal to conservative... 

And Hitchens drops an elbow from the sky! And Mamet is down...

I highly recommend the article because it shows how adroit Hitchens is with the written word and that it's not necessarily a problem of what the argument is but it is a problem as to how a problem is presented.  And the argument present within the book is clunky and full of errors.

In the effort of full disclosure, there may have a been a mix up regarding conservative thinkers: American Thinker: Mixing up Hitchens, Mamet and Hayek?

In response to that article, I have to admit that for all the points that Hitchens makes, this is merely an oversight for the overall argument.  I agree that sources need to be cited properly, but really?  You're point is that it wasn't Fredrich Hayek, it was Thomas Sowell?  What about, oh, I don't know, everything else that was mentioned?


I used to think of myself as conservative, especially when I first got into politics.  I think my change to liberalism began in relation to three events, all of which occurred in or around 2006:

1- Hurricane Katrina.  Whether the government should have been responsible is something else entirely.  However, since there was supposed to be a response and it was slow, it seemed like the answer wasn't to limit government but to try and make it better in its current manifestation.

2- The Iraq War.  I supported the invasion and subsequent "occupation" (there's really not another word for it) and for three years, I defended it and argued for it.  Then, the death toll reached 2,000 American soldiers.  And I thought to myself "That's it.  That's the number".  In Blowin' In The Wind, Bob Dylan asks "And how many deaths will it take 'till he knows that too many people have died?"  And it haunts me, still to this day that I have a number.  2,000.  Not 1,999 or one, but 2,000.

3-  (Not so proud of this one) I started dating a staunch liberal... hey, liberal or conservative, we all want to get laid.

Now, these events happened slowly, over the course of a few years.  When I got to "the other side", I looked back on the company that I kept and the thoughts I had and the views that I espoused, and I thought to myself about how ardent I was in believing these things.

But, I thought to myself, I didn't think of myself as wrong, any more than I consider myself to be wrong now.  At this point, I fully comprehended what it was to have a point of view and the difference between the subjective and the objective.  One can have an opinion and I can have an opinion, but we should all share facts.  I'm 26 years old.  I've realized this.

Mamet hasn't.  And that's the problem with conversions in general, be it political or religious.  The new and faithful are more adamant about the belief than those raised in the proposition.  (Don't believe me?  Ask Cat Stevens)  And if you think that Mamet has got it together, thats fine... but he admires Sarah Palin for being "a Worker".

What work has she done?  I can only really venture to say that she's an excellent self-promoter, but as a mother?  Failed.  As a politician?  Failed.  As a leader?  I don't think that she's even begun to learn how to do that.

The Score Sheet

I'm going to keep a running list of those that are running for president.  Officially running.  Which means I get to ignore Sarah Palin for as long as I can.  I'm also going to rank them in the order that I think that they would be good at beating Obama.  If you disagree, feel free to comment and let me know why I'm wrong.  Then, I'll tell you why you are wrong.

1.  Mitt Romney - He's more politically savvy than people give him credit for.  He has the business credentials that they want a prez candidate to have.  He's a good looking guy and what should be an asset has been played as a hindrance:  He's Mormon.  The GOP have the chance to nominate someone that would be the closest they've come to a diversity choice and make big in-roads in the religious plurality.

2.  Gary Johnson - I just like this guy.  He's consistent, well-spoken and has stayed under the radar, both intentionally and because his name isn't "Sarah Palin".  Keep an eye on him.  I think he's our spoiler.

3.  Newt Gingrich - Logistically, the campaign has been a nightmare, but you got to admit that it was ballsy that he came out against the Ryan Plan.  It was a quasi-reasonable statement from a guy that normally isn't.

4.  Tim Pawlenty - I think I've had breakfasts that I was more excited about that Tim Pawlenty.  He also falls into the category of the being reasonable, when he wants to be, but he's already moving further to the right in an unconscionable sense.

5.  Michelle Bachmann - I really wish that she was lower on this list, but first there are too many people that are more rotten than Bachmann.  Also, Bachmann has sense to play up her Xianity in Iowa (the same state that almost went for Pat Robertson back in the 80's), so she's trying to position herself as the Huckabee for 2012.  Or the Martin Sheen in The Dead Zone, I can't really tell the difference.

6.  Ron Paul - Paul reminds me that whenever you make an event on Facebook, everyone comes by and says "Oh, yeah! Imma TOTALLY be there!", so everyone's thinking "well, there must be like a THOUSAND people that are going to this party".  There's a lot of hype and a lot of buzz.  But no one shows up.  Which is a shame because, while I disagree with Paul by and large on a lot of things, he's principled.  And you have to respect that in a politician.  Though how he's still in office after 2008, I don't know...

7.  Rick Santorum - I was really surprised that he would throw his hat into the ring.  There's no one that has a middle of the road opinion of Santorum.  Either you hate 'em or you don't.  He's banking on the fact that people don't remember that when he was Senator from PA, he said homosexuality was the problem of the nation... Now if you were ask, let's say...

8.  Herman Cain - he'd say that the problem was Muslims.  Why?  Because he comes from the Glenn Beck School of Thought, which means that the best day in America was on September 12th, 2001, the ashes and rubble of the WTC and Pentagon and the field of PA smoldered and everyone was in lockstep with Bush II.  I respect the style of his speeches but I won't respect a man that can't appreciate that legislation takes more than three pages to get across.

I want my prez to be smarter than me. I want my prez to be better than me.  I don't want someone that I could fill in for...

9.  Fred Karger - I'm not even sure why I put him on the list.  I know I could be a better prez than him.  And he's really running just to spite Romney.  If you're gay and you're just out there spreading hate about a Mormon, you've become the enemy in the instant that you preach.

Stay tuned.