Most remarkable thing about this debate, is that people with clearly opposing views, could do it in such a civilised and respectful way. Something that very sadly missing today!
I feel we've lost a lot of common sense and decency. People are so easily offended that they feel entitled to walk out of a room if someone holds a different opinion to theirs.
The civility is better than we see today, but the constant bullshit spewed from the right is the same as we see today. Anyone who is prepared to argue that Reagan was an honest guy or even remotely competent at governance has nothing worthwhile to add to the discourse. Mease accidentally got one thing right. He said Reagan’s legacy is nothing if not SDI. Thirty plus years on SDI remains a childish fantasy and Reagan deserves no legacy.
@@Longtack55 - That would have been pointless like shooting fish in a barrel- what he would have done is dismantle all the mad premises behind identity politics- particularly the idea that a biological man can become a woman
Hah! How good is this. What an intellectual, smart, witty and above all, civilised debate. Where are the likes of these men now? What a noisy vacuum we live in these days. Tragic. Thanks for uploading.
Perhaps it was so civilised because they're all good friends? They may have some disagreement but they are all centrist liberals who all fundamentally believe in the dominance of the western capitalist system.
@@kiwitrainguy: Christopher Hitchens passed away in 2011, Clive James in 2019, and P.J. O'Rourke in 2022. As of October 7th, 2023, Edwin Meese carries on at 91 years of age.
What an age we live in, where we can summon up wonderful voices from the past at leisure. I came he for James, and Hitchens with O'Rourke as an attractive addition. I must say, Hitchens doesn't cover himself in glory here.
You assume that he is accurate and truthful. He disarms rebuttal by taking control of the argument, speaking loudly, cutting off others, and insisting on have the last word. Check your assumptions.
Watched it twice to check my assumptions. No interruptions, only corrections which were needed. He let them speak with good manners. The opposing view had the most speaking time. Watch it again and keep that in mind. Hitchens would not apologise for his dulcet tones which is of course correct.
One thing you have to give Credit to Hitch for is that he is amusingly well recorded. The archive of his appearances seems to be a well without a bottom. Really an astonishment in hindsight, considering film was not a cheap technology and that the films must physically survive. Even as a historian it’s an uncanny achievement.
When I watch this and other similar videos u quickly see that Hitchens wasn’t any kind of genius. Just another guy who can speak with confidence based on a privileged upbringing.
@@ajahnpadawan8812 He was on the wrong side of many issues, but his public school accent played well in the US. And I find him both entertaining and essentially likeable. Would be good to spend an evening arguing with him over a few pints…
I said this on Liam's other video, and I'll say it again here: I cannot thank you enough for sourcing and uploading this. To anyone reading: please do not post this link in public fora anywhere. That will only risk attracting content copyright strikes. If you want to share it, please only do so in private messages with discreet people you personally know and trust.
@@legalmonkey As you doubtless know, there's a serious cult for all things Hitch here on RU-vid, so if you can find a way of circumventing any copyright and try reuploading that video -- maybe by not mentioning his full name or undescoring some letters -- it would go down as well as this upload has.
The fact that the first 3 intro minutes of this video exist prove that humanity was once in fact, for a brief moment in the 20th century, civilized. Spot on good sirs.
I was born in 1977 in the U.K. and remember current affairs broadcasts like this. I was somewhat of a nerd and enjoyed programmes from around the age of 6 or 7 such as this. I recognised in my teenage years (1992 onwards) that open debates changed. Mostly in the "open" aspect, mildy at first. However, I still have faith that we will have no option other than to return to a balanced society.
Literally anyone: _"Ronald Reagan once had chocolate ice cream."_ Edwin Meese: _"No he didn't. I was there when he ordered it, and it was definitely vanilla."_
@@ericprinzing1600 Why do you want me to do that, but think it is dreadful for Hitchens to? He doesn't need to be original on Atheism and in fact no-one can be-- the arguments of atheism are pretty fixed and have been for a few thousand years. Hitchens' value was to introduce a new generation of people to that critical tradition -- see his Portable Atheist. But I think he had a very powerful way of formulating all those arguments anew
@@ericprinzing1600 Thanks. On points 1 and 2 -- you were certainly recommending a course of action to me and insinuating -- as you do again here -- that Hitchens is redundant; and there were quite a number of ad hominem remarks in which Hitchens was reduced by you to a sort of trivial entertainer. But no matter. On 'religion poisons everything' -- I think Hitchens made that case very well: it poisons life by making the individual a plaything of non-existent totalitarian deities or very existent theocratic authorities, so crushing our individuality, committing us to a life of subjection and a perverted sense of guilt, and its foundational texts express either primitive tribal codes that we are well rid of or common sense things that are instinctive and don't require supernatural enforcement. That's all quite poisonous, I'd say. On atheism, the fact that its public expression across different ancient civilisations up until fairly recently even in the West was usually met with death or exile or other penalties for' blaspheme' does not mean that people did not have very strong and clear atheistic thoughts from the beginning. They just had to be suppressed. I have nothing against Russell et all. Russell's books are on my shelves, including 'why I am not a Christian'. But to suggest that Russell or Mackie are the last words on the subject of atheism and that no further comment is needed seems a bit cramped. Finally, on Muslims, what you say is a huge slur. Hitchens was certainly for the extirpation of militant Islamists of the ISIS and Al Qaeda persuasion --- the beheaders and suicide bombers -- but in no conceivable sense of Muslims as a whole. For years he advocated for the Sunni Muslim Kurds of northern Iraq. On Stalin and the Orthodox Church, I think Hitchens was actually pointing out that Stalin appropriated all the worst bits of the Church --- the imposition of doctrinaire views, the pursuit of heretics, the tribalism, the inquisitions and fake miracles of industrial and agricultural production. He also made points about the cynical alliance between Putin and the Russian orthodox Church, which have proved all too true in the current Russian onslaught on Ukraine. best wishes.
What a brilliant upload, thanks a lot. Edwin Meese's explanation of the 'Iran initiative' is absolutely astonishing. Somewhere, probably at the end of a bar, Hitchens is still laughing at that.
I liked how Clive would ask Meese , an eyewitness insider , what actually happened, and meanwhile Hitchens stuck to his fabricated conspiracy theories. It’s what you would expect from someone who never even had the civility to respect religious freedom, and I say that as an atheist.
@@roughhabit9085 You're aware that Hitchens cites the accounts of others, all made in public, when questioning the narrative of Meese? As for the comment on religious freedom, I'm astonished you think that Hitchens didn't respect religious freedom.
That's a bizarre interpretation. O'Rourke basically said, "No, but you are!" A really lame retort. I'm not surprised he regards flippancy as a virtue, though.
This was a fascinating archival interview that I am so glad has been posted, thank you! The one thing I hadn't picked up on back in the 80's is how much of a party line-spouting wiener P.J. O'Rourke was. Meese and Hitchens were as clear-eyed and well-spoken as always, even though I've always seen Meese as someone whose job it was to serve Reagan well. This video did NOT feel like 43 minutes to me!
@@dansullivan7693 That was my impression of him too, Dan. I remembered PJ as well-spoken and well-thought out, but that was from 40 years ago. I guess he was either not on top of his game this day, or he didn't know what was being talked about for a lot of it. His comments here seem really generic, and not geared toward answering the questions posed to him. It felt to me like he was struggling to cover the subject for much of this interview. Thanks for responding.
@@ofrabjousday1 If this is mediocre PJ, I look forward to when he's on his game! Hitchens comes across to me as a dope, Meese is articulate and lawyerly, James is as usual worth hearing, but PJ strikes me as being the most reasonable & intelligent person in the discussion.
@@MattSingh1 I know they'd known each other in the 1970s, and Hitchens liked James , but I always thought James was a little more ambivalent abt Hitchens.
I'd been aware their friendship but, never been able to find an example of them sharing screen time together, until stumbling across this little gem...
@@roughhabit9085 I’m not sure I ever said he was my dear boy! Nothing wrong with expressing thanks to someone who’s gone to the trouble of posting things one jolly well likes Have a great day sir
The breakup of the Soviet Union has very little to do with Reagan and everything to do with Gorbachev. Had Reagan been negotiating with Stalin or Khrushchev or Brezhnev - or Putin for that matter - Reagan wouldn’t have gotten anywhere. Reagan believed that the world was created in six days. I could never get past that.
@@dthomas9230 it kills me the kind or revisionism that goes on regarding Reagan. As though history has proven him a great president. I guess it’s all relative. I would have taken Reagan over George W Bush. And compared to Trump, Reagan was a saint.
@@tombombadyl4535 That’s what is….nostalgia and the political atmosphere having sunken to new lows in our era. Next to Trump and even W., Reagan seems swell.
Amazing video. Great debate. Love the combination of O'Rourke, Hitchens and James. I like Hitchens and this is the first debate I've seen where he didn't always have the upper hand.
@@roughhabit9085 More like 2 v 1.5. The purpose of the show was to discuss how much, if any, truth there was in a particular commonly-held negative view of Reagan. As host, it fell to Clive James to present that view at the beginning. Thereafter, it was 2 v 1. James interjected now and then with some negativity about Reagan, but that was just him steering the discussion in the direction it was supposed to go.
Debate between highly intelligent people who have differnt views...i miss this today. Its so sad today to see what has happened to the left and right. Many thanks.
Having Christopher Hitchens in any debate must have been terrifying for all involved. Sadly things have not progressed as much as we would have hoped since then
@Don´tbehasty as well as US ineptitude (which Hitchens never neglected to point out) would allow. But that had nothing to do with the necessity and rightness of removing Saddam Hussein.
I think you mean Hitchens's powers of articulation vs. Meese's barefaced lies. I find it oddly comforting, I had come to think that the right telling easily disprovable lies without remotely caring that we can prove they are lying was a fairly recent phenomena. I forgot about the pioneering work in that field by Reagan and his accolytes (thinking about it, might have go back a little further than to Nixon, although it's no coincidence that even at the very end of the Nixon presidency Reagan would shamelessly deny that any wrongdoing had taken place).
@@chrispalmer7893 Ah. I see. Meese is a liar. Give me just a couple of his lies and if you can reference your source, so much the better, but not required. Incidentally, I did not care for Meese.
@@shinybeast8946 Against my better nature I am defending Meese. I asked Chris Palmer to give me some examples of when Meese lied. I presume he did. But I want him to provide me with some specific lies.
@@britpackdog4545 isn’t it (not) amazing. Just an innocent comment that all three literary heroes are in one discussion. Nothing special at all for others, but interesting for me. Sarcasm is healthy - keep going if you wish.
My insignificant observations, feel free to lambast me. 1. O'Rourke thinks he's smarter than Hitchens and believes it. 2. Meese knows he's not smarter than Hitchens and accepts it. 3. Hitchens is smarter than all of them and tolerates the situation. 4. James could be smarter than any of them and doesn't care.
Don’t know too much about O’Rourke or Meese . James of course had about five more careers than Hitchens. He was a pioneer of television and comedy. He was considered one of the world’s best literary critics. He knew about ten more languages than Hitchens. Read them both and it doesn’t take long to glean who is the finer writer, and James never got labeled a sewer pipe sucker.
Christopher Hitchens was a smart man. He was a debater par excellence & a polemical pugilist. But for all his brilliance he lacked true wisdom & his legacy will not last. Christopher got the flashy wit, his brother Peter got the wisdom.
A wonderful trip back in time. You can't help but wonder what Hitchens would have made of Presidents Trump and Biden. Especially Trump. Thanks for the upload.
What a gem from the past,Thank you..Anything Hitchens is involved with I watch, he didn’t get all his own way but that’s what’s necessary regarding serious intellectual debate. Messe will always defend his master, obedient till the end. O’Rourke acted like a articulate bodyguard for Meese, cutting Hitchens down once he scented any liberal left opinion. But Hitchens is scared of no one (Chomsky should of been invited to this debate to even the sides up). The real diamond amongst the gems was Clive James, dry wit mixed with knowledge and intellectual articulation is what’s required today in serious debates. Reagan was a enigma, his I’m just an ordinary man doing my job attitude worked, but behind the scenes in the White House as in any power organisation there is always sculduggery a plenty.
Well said. Obvious in this exchange in the face of peers. You can see his anxiety go up when he loses control of the conversation. His legs flutter and he starts to stutter.
@@egverlander He never had control of the conversation and had to struggle just to get a point made. O’Rourke and Meese came off as pathetic partisan apologists.
@@joeanthony7759 Not to me. Meese is obviously the Reagan partisan, but I've seen enough in my 75 years to think that he's largely truthful. PJ is terrific.
The civilized, engaging chat between these intellectual giants of fiercely opposing views is a marvel to behold ... fast forward to today and we have The Kardashians as arbiters of thought. Ye gods!
Maybe. I'd like to hear Bill Barr, for example. But he's too rational to get air time, and we have no forum for reasonable discussion these days, at least not that I'm aware of.
thanks for uploading this Liam. something weirdly riveting about these 4 dueling and duking it out like this. PJ is probably the only one who could've kept apace with CH. Hitchens the superior debater and probably the superior mind. PJ as a writer leaves him in the dust. call it deuce, captured forever in time. great post.
This was a great discussion... I could have watched them speak for hours. All of these guys are so obviously incredibly intelligent, it's personally humbling. Although Hitchens is smart, articulate, well-read and witty, this discussion made me realize that he may be prone to jumping to conclusions, and that perhaps his sources are not entirely reliable. A true investigative journalist needs to gather facts/information from all sides... not just the side that aligns with his own political perspective.
Reagan didn't put the Soviets at ease with his flippant "We begin bombing in five minutes" joke. It was taken seriously by some and led to a wartime alert for a short while by part of the USSR's military. The Cold War was not a time to be feeding Soviet paranoia about nuclear strikes. Loved Hitchens' "lumberjack in the Sahara" analogy slap down, or should I say "Hitchslap"?
Perfect for Meese from a book recommended by Hitchens: “He may be known by his propensity to organise societies for the purpose of making silk purses out of sows’ ears. This tendency is not so dangerous as it might seem; for it may be observed that the sows, after taking their washing with a grunt or two, trundle back unbarmed to the wallow; and the purse-market is quoted as firm.”
Thanks for uploading this Liam. I remember watching it when it was first broadcast. Where did the years go? I like Hitchens. Met him once outside the National Portrait Gallery. He was charm itself. Take issue, though, with his dismissal of Carter as a 'cretin'. Carter did not connect with the American people and I don't think anyone argues that he was one of the great Presidents. Still he was far from being a 'cretin'.
@@legalmonkey A rainy weekday very early 2000s. He was with a woman and a child/children. I told him I thought his essays in Vanity Fair were the best things in the magazine. (I wasn't kissing up to him. I DID think it.) His reply? Well thank you very much indeed. You've just made my day. A charmer. Met his brother near Royal Kensington Gardens approx. 10 years ago. He wasn't rude exactly. Lacked his brother's charm and approachability, though... BEST, David.
@@davidgoulden5956 Ah, so you met both the greater and the much lesser. Meese too is still around - the good die young. Hitch was perhaps thinking of Carter's godbothering but the remark remains otherwise inaccurate and certainly uncharitable.
@@twntwrs The meeting with Christopher was forgettable. If I'd know he would be that chilly, I wouldn't have bothered approaching him. (To be fair, perhaps I caught him at a bad moment.) Regarding Carter, he reminds me of Ted Heath in some ways. That is, both fundamentally decent and very intelligent men who were not ideally suited temperamentally to becoming the leaders of their countries. To compound their problems, I think they attained the highest office at an uncommonly turbulent time. BEST, D.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. A debate conducted in the last week of Reagan’s presidency. Hear how Reagan was seen as a safe pair of hands after batshit crazy Nixon. Sound familiar ? Reagan himself sounds like a cross between Biden and Trump, an insensitive senile liar. Hitchens and James are the stars of the show. Hitchens is accused of being humourless by his two opponents when his sardonic wit is several levels above their attempts at humour. RIP the hitch taken too early
