The Split Personality of William Maher.

Tags

America, Bill Maher, Christianity and Islam, Defend the modern world, Gaza, Hypocrisy, Iraq, Liberals, Michael Moore, Multiculturalism, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Real Time, Television, USA, War

The Liberal position in America is notoriously difficult to define. Many of the ideologies gathered under the term in the US would be classed at ‘Right-Wing’ in Europe (and almost certainly in continental Europe) where the label usually carries connotations of socialism and enthusiasm for the welfare state. American Liberals (against the claims of some Conservatives) are not at that point yet. More often, they align roughly with British centrists like the Orange-book Liberal Democrats or Cameronite Tories.

The American term for Liberals of the European style is ‘Leftist’, or collectively ‘The Left’. These are not often found in Establishment politics, or indeed anywhere close to the heat-field of democratic accountability. Rather they lurk on the fringes of Hollywood, music and (perhaps most of all) the booming trade of ‘political satire’.

A giant on this last stage is a Mr William “Bill” Maher.

Perhaps the most effective satirist in modern America, Maher has never made a secret of his adoration of President Obama (he was a big money donor to Obama’s re-election campaign) or of his violent loathing for White American culture and the rural poor. His well-honed spiel has been to accuse, with the merry confidence of a drunk, anyone exhibiting hostility toward the big-state idea as ‘racist’, a paid-for corporate toady or else a reprobate, homophobic, pro-life creationist. 

And this has worked extremely well. On my personal facebook page, I can never seem to avoid a re-post of Mr Maher’s latest routine, and his television show ‘Real Time’ is one of the most popular of its kind on American cable.

But despite such popularity, Maher has a quirk which makes his acceptance into Liberal high society controversial for more devout believers.

Maher is a Zionist. As a matter of fact, a very orthodox one. The comedian reliably supports the Israeli military in its offensives against terrorism wherever (and in whatever manner) they occur, and most recently found himself in hot water for doing so regarding Operation Protective Edge.

But why would I complain about that, you ask? It’s simple. Mr Maher’s support for Israel’s right to defend itself lies in stark contrast to his consistent refusal to grant this same right to America and Europe.

Whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, Maher has repeatedly berated the US military for its excesses and sought (with some success) to diminish the morale of patriotic forces. The Bush regime in particular had no moral fibre for Maher and his baying amen-corner audiences. The invasion of Iraq was motivated by the price of oil. The assault on Falluja was a war crime. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib meanwhile was not a singular episode but rather chimed with the moral tone of the whole enterprise.

Is it unfair to speculate that had the IDF been responsible for any of these events, Maher would have no trouble finding a way of rationalising them? I don’t think so.

And what would that be exactly? Hypocrisy? Tribalism (Maher has a Jewish mother)? Ignorance (that America and Israel are fighting the same wars)?

That I don’t know. But in my humble opinion the right Israel has to defend its liberal society extends to any other democracy, and wrong-headed hypocrites like Maher let us all down by obscuring this fact.

D, LDN.

Advertisement

What We Owe Christopher Hitchens.

Tags

Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Hitchens, Iraq War, Islamism, Martin Amis, Michael Moore, New York Times

I’ve recieved the accusation before that I am inspired by the literary style of the late Anglo-American journalist Christopher Hitchens. It’s possible to take this both as a great compliment and a sly insult. People (often Americans) can mean it as a way of saying ‘you write very well’. Others (often English) use it less kindly to mean ‘you aren’t original’, or ‘you’re a copycat’.

Either way, they are close to the mark but a little off. The greatest prose stylist in modern English letters is Martin Amis, Christopher Hitchens’ best friend. Whenever I’m looking to sharpen up my own style, I read a random book review written by Amis to remind myself of what perfection on a page looks like. I imagine Hitchens himself was greatly inspired by his lesser known friend and may have been subject to the occasional stylistic over-ruling by him.

But Amis will never be a big a name as his late comrade. That’s for sure. Hitchens, who just days before 9/11 was a charming but marginal leftist known only to the most geekish political observer, ended his life with a full page obituary in the New York Times and a headline announcement on BBC news.

The reasons why have a lot to do with style and a little to do with substance.

Hitchens was an undoubtedly brilliant author. His essays must have inspired a million bloggers and his opinions have changed a million minds. He was not the greatest stylist ever. In fact from an English perspective, he wasn’t even unusually poetic, but it’s easy to understand how he came across as exotic in the staid environment of American politics; a fact of course that was amplified many times over by his ability to speak as well as he wrote.

I do not speak as easily as I write. In debates I rise too quickly to anger. I’m ok with everyday conversations, but otherwise emotion overtakes me, especially when I talk about politics.

Compare this to Hitchens, who seemed able to make his emotions dance perfectly to the tune of his intellect. He never got angry when it didn’t serve his point to do so. He never laughed out of time, or shook, or retreated. A suicidal masculinity oozed from his deep voice and steady eyes, turning his opponents into furniture. 

It’s conventional to say that the legacy of Hitchens will be dominated by two things – Anti-Christianity and Iraq. I’m not so certain. He will of course be remembered by many as the man who held on to the pro-Iraq war viewpoint like a rottweiler with a bone. And for others, his contempt for Evangelical Christianity will remain his largest contribution.

But for me, his impact was greatest upon the specific issue of Islam and its relationship with the Western Left.

Despite devoting very little in his ‘God is not Great’ volume to Islam, it was easy to tell that it was the faith most contemptible to him. The launch of his most prolific period (during which he became familiar to all) was shortly after the Islamist attacks of 9/11 when he posted some commonsensical articles about the attack in the distinctly un-commonsensical magazine The Nation.

But let’s not make this a biography. What do we, in the Counter-Jihad tendency owe Hitchens?

Well firstly and most obviously, it is a lot easier to speak about Muslim extremism now than it would have been had Hitchens never existed.

Few take time to recall what it was actually like during those few hot months after the attacks. The Islamist onslaught had the precisely opposite effect to the one rationally expected. People turned on America in their millions. Sympathy broke out in Western capitals for the new, glamourous savages. ‘They had it coming” was the popular refrain from the Left. Criticism of Islam itself was deemed completely out of line.

Nowadays, the wall of political correctness around Islamism has collapsed. If it weren’t for Hitchens and his popularisation of the anti-Islamist position, this might not have been the case.

And ‘popularisation’ is entirely the right word. Hitchens was a pop-culture intellectual. He was appealing even to those who hate the intellectual. This allowed the anti-Islamist argument to penetrate into the parliament of youth, an arena usually dominated by Leftists like Michael Moore. And once it was inside the door, people began more and more to open up to it.

Secondly Hitchens, whether intentionally or not, inflicted massive damage on the conventional Left. Leftists still hate him for what he did during a period that would otherwise have been a bumper harvest for them. Michael Moore was discredited at the peak of his career, and many people fondly remember Hitchens showing the finger to the liberals in the audience of Bill Maher’s show. He made Leftism look soppy, sorry for itself, hippyish and outdated.

Thirdly and lastly, Hitchens elevated the quality of writing in American journalism to an English standard. I’m sorry if that sounds offensive to America. I adore America, but I also adore the English language and the way it is used by the English.

I can’t foresee a time soon when Hitchens will be forgotten. A new book called ‘Unhitched’ attempts the same type of character assassination on Hitchens that he himself became famous for. Even if the criticisms are valid (and there are many that could be made), Hitchens is more than a cult figure now. He has achieved the same kind of status-invincibility as the boxer who has never lost a bout achieves when he retires early. It doesn’t matter how well you can hype up your retrospective chances of defeating him, you’ll never get the chance. One may as well invite Genghis Khan outside for a fist-fight. It means nothing. He’s gone. And when he was here, no-one could match him.

D, LDN