Christopher Hitchens has a review of Robert Dallek’s John F. Kennedy biography in the Times Literary Supplement. Hitchens doesn’t exactly hold back from laying into the Kennedy cult, and I would have expected him to be highly critical of Kennedy’s record in office. I have to say, though, that I found the manner of Hitchens’s revelling in Kennedy’s physical ailments somewhat arresting. I won’t go through the whole catalogue here, but Hitchens’s judgement is this:
Obviously, a good deal of “spin” is required to make an Achilles out of such a poxed and suppurating Philoctetes. The difference was supplied by family money in heaping measure, by the canny emphasis on a war record, and by serious attention to the flattery and suborning of the media.
And when I read the following, I was somewhat shocked:
But the furthest that Dallek will go [in agreeing with the Hitchens view that Kennedy’s ailments made him unfit to be President] here is to admit – following Seymour Hersh’s earlier book The Dark Side of Camelot – that Kennedy’s back-brace held him upright in the open car in Dallas, unable to duck the second and devastating bullet from Lee Harvey Oswald. This is almost the only connection between the President’s health and his fitness that is allowable in these pages, and I presume that it is its relative blamelessness which allows the concession.
“Relative blamelessness”? I’m not sure where the “relative” comes into play here. It must mean something like “somewhat blameworthy, but not as blameworthy as some of Kennedy’s other disabilities.” It is, at any rate, a poisonous phrase which would certainly attract Hitchens’s disapprobation in other, all too easily imagined, contexts.
UPDATE: The link above has now become non-functional. The curious had better consult the print edition.
“and I presume that it is its relative blamelessness which allows the concession.”
Yeah, Kennedy has only a small amount of blame for being assassinated. Apparently most of the blame belongs to the assassin. I guess Reagan’s age was likewise “relatively blameless” for being shot by John Hinckley Jr. Hitchens is such a jerk.
In any case, Hitchens misses Dallek’s point about the possible role of the back brace:
“The first bullet that found its mark passed through his neck and it would have toppled him over … it would have knocked him over if it weren’t for the back brace,” Dallek explains. “But it held him upright. And so the second bullet that found the back of his head killed him. So it’s ironic that the brace, which was there to help his back, contributed to his death.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/14/earlyshow/leisure/books/main553860.shtml
Dallek doesn’t say that Kennedy was “unable to duck” - for goodness sakes, the man had already been shot through the neck. Hitchens really is nasty. Why does he spend so much time attacking people like Mother Theresa, Princess Diana, JFK? There is some pathology in that guy.
What I really want to know is: if JFK was that sick and that drugged up how did he get the reputation of stud-puppet and horn-dog? I mean if I were that sick and that high, I wouldn’t be chasing 19 year old girls.
As for Hitchens, I thought he let ‘em off easy. This is a more realistic view of that clan.
No, I think Hitchens is just being a consistent dickhead. He previously speculated Reagan had full-blown Alzheimer’s by 1982, appropriately enough, in an article that calls on George W. Bush’s critics to go for the cheap shots instead of avoiding them.
“Relative blamelessness”. Perhaps he means its blamelessness relative to the bullet and to Oswald. That’s how I read it, anyway.
I don’t understand Chris’s construal of ‘relative blamelessness’. I take it to mean ‘blameless relative to the other complaints’, and hence to be silent on
Sorry about the premature posting above. I don’t understand Chris’s construal of ‘relative blamelessness’. I take it to mean ‘blameless in comparison to the other complaints’, and hence to be silent about whether the backbrace condition was blameworthy at all - ie relatively blameless is compatible with not blameworthy at all. (The desired comparison couldn’t have been effected by just saying ‘blameless’.)If Hitchens is comparing wearing the backbrace with the other conditions, then presumably he’s thinking of the VD etc., and since allocating blame for illnesses is a tricky business, then he’s open to some criticism. But it seems much more likely that Hitchens is assessing Kennedy for blameworthiness in choosing to occupy the presidency while suffering from, and being treated for, these various medical conditions. The backbrace might seem fairly low on that list, and hence relatively blameless, compared to the conditions for which he took uppers and downers etc etc. On this construal, Hitchens is saying that there’s no (or little) blame to Kennedy for occupying the presidency while needing a backbrace, since that couldn’t be expected to impair his competence, but there is blame in occupying the presidency while undergoing other treatments which he must have known would affect his ability to run the country competently. I don’t know enough about Kennedy and his ailments to assess this claim, but it doens’t seem inherently objectionable, does it?
I’m afraid my linguistic intuitions are unshaken, Eve, though I’d probably defer to Brian (our resident CT linguistics person) if he disagreed. If I said of persons X and Y that they were guilty as hell and then of Z that she was “relatively blameless”, I think the conversational implicature would be that Z could be largely, though not completely, exonerated.
I’m with Chris. ‘Relatively blameless’ is logically compatible with blame free, but if that’s what you mean it’s a very odd, and rather inappropriate, way to put it. Compare
There were many mistakes by world leaders that led to World War I. Alongside their mistakes, I’m relatively blameless for that disaster.
The important point here is that words matter. If you mean blameless, say ‘blameless’. If you add an extra word in, that sends a message that the simple word wouldn’t have been good enough for what you wanted to convey. What work could ‘relative’ do in Hitchens’s prose except qualify somewhat the position that the back brace was, simply, blameless? Presumably nothing, so we read it as a qualifier, even if that’s not literally what it means.
Well, maybe I wouldn’t go to the stake for that linguistic intuition. But still, isn’t the sting of Chris’s criticism of Hitchens drawn by understanding him as blaming Kennedy, not for his illnesses, but for his decision to hold the presidency while hopped up to the eyebrows with the drugs used to treat those illnesses?
Yes, Hitchens does make that criticism, though it isn’t clear to me that the facts support that judgement. Was Kennedy more irresponsible than a serious depressive who regularly self-medicated with large quantities of booze was for leading Britain in WW2?
But I’m afraid that the Hitchens writes with the aim of making Kennedy a figure of disgust for us on account of his physical symptoms and seems to relish doing so in a way that strikes me as sadistic. That Hitchens indulges his impulse so to do is not to his credit.
But Churchill succeeded, spectacularly, and that’s why his drinking doesn’t matter. If he’d failed, it wouldn’t have been unreasonable to mention his depression and alcohol problems in criticism. Kennedy’s record isn’t as impressive as Churchill’s, so questioning his judgement with respect to his drug intake is similarly legitimate.
As for Hitchens relishing the physical debilities, I don’t see it myself. But admittedly this kind of thing is common - look at the way in which those who are hostile to Bush relish the claims that he’s stupid, which if true is no more his fault than Kennedy’s physical ailments.
But if Hitchens’s point is that Kennedy was in a state where he shouldn’t have taken the opportunity to succeed or fail at being President in the first place, it is hard to see why he wouldn’t also have to concede that Churchill was in a state where he shouldn’t have taken the opportunity to succeed or fail at being PM.
I suppose what’s operative here is moral luck - for some risks, taking them is justified if they come off, not if they don’t. I take it that Hitchens thinks that Kennedy’s risk-taking really didn’t come off. Churchill, on the other hand - we all have reason to be glad he took the risk.
Kennedy certainly was unlucky….
“Kennedy certainly was unlucky….”
Luck is the residue of design —
Branch Rickey
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review