Hitchens, Sheehan and the Logic of Protest

I recently suggested that Christopher Hitchens was an example of a right-wing pundit who, at the least, argued facts and reasoning on their merits. He was to be contrasted with those of ill intent, like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly, whose whole M.O. is to decide upon their opinion first, and then organize some facts to provide an appearance of support for that opinion. I never intended to lionize Hitchens as someone with whom I agreed.

In an op-ed piece in Slate Magazine, Hitchens provides some technically correct analysis regarding Cindy Sheehan's protest, which nevertheless misses both the political logic of her action, and the illogic of the president's position regarding the underlying issue, namely Iraq. Hitchens chooses to argue at length about what Sheehan's real authority is for making claims either about the policy or for some of the president's time. The term he uses to describe Sheehan's point of view, piffle, seems an apt description of his choice of topics. That is, his criticism of Mrs. Sheehan is beside the point in several ways. As a strictly political matter, Sheehan indeed has authority, by virtue of her loss and the manner in which her son behaved, that Hitchens can only dream of. You can argue with her policy prescription, but that isn't relevant either. No one expects a mother from California to have a firm grip on foreign policy. We do expect that of the president, and her protest highlights the fact that he doesn't have a firm grip on much of anything other than how to savage his political opponents.

DEMOPHOENIX