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.
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.
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 CZcams, 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.
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.
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.
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."_
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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...
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.
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.
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.
@@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
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.”
That is a very important counter to Messe's point.... But my reading of Paul Foote's long form work points to another player... Who now thinks much of the USS Vincennes 'incident' July 88.
It was exceptionally difficult to best Hitch in any polemic but he met his match in these two. If the subject under discussion had been nearly anything else in world history or literature he would have been on much firmer ground to the point of having been seen as giving a tutorial. I couldn't abide the man after he became somewhat slovenly owing to excessive reliance on what he tenderly called "the amber restorative" but by his later years I just could not help but admire and respect him greatly.
I'm not sure that "well, the Brits used to crack down hard on the natives when they had an empire" qualifies as "besting" someone who had always been a critic of that empire. And as for "we didn't deal with the kidnappers, we went through a third party", I suppose you can't expect much else from a man arguing that first duty of government is to crack jokes.
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"?
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!
@UFO what?
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.
It was rare then too.
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.
Such an original comment.
What I wouldn’t give to hear Hitchens let loose on the fools of today.
I miss that man, every day, Ben.
Imagine him talking of Trump!
@@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
@@Longtack55 or better yet Hillary
I agree 100%, he would crucify them all
Hitchens and PJ on the same interview, absolute gold, thanks
You're welcome. Glad you enjoyed it. :)
PJ is a GOP suck up. Easily forgotten
Clive James- the Kogarah Kid! One of Australia's best exports. ❤
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.
Extremely depressing.
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.
Both Hitchens and James are now dead. Does anybody know about the other two?
@@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.
There were a lot of late night discussion shows, I expect because they were cheap to produce.
The mighty James with the mighty Hitchens - what a combination
We do not have people like them now
I love this era of Hitchens.
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.
This is the late 1980’s not the late 1880’s
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.
Thank you for that comment. I will pin it here. I had a different video which I uploaded on CH taken down recently!
@@legalmonkey Every Hitch video taken down is a loss to thinking people everywhere.
@@legalmonkey As you doubtless know, there's a serious cult for all things Hitch here on CZcams, 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.
@@AnkurBorwankar ... and thinking women.
@@mangasky7 - Ok. Thank you for that tip.
This is so Fabulous! Many thanks for posting 🖤
Hitchens’s exactitude and ability to pull up facts in the face of conjecture is admirable.
Seemed the opposite was happening here
….and the ability of his opponents to infer the opposite is undeniable….
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.
@@egverlander well said
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.
Clive James was a superb journalist, Polymath and intellectual.
Thanks for the upload. I remember seeing the original broadcast and O’Rourke’s comment on humour has always stayed with me. The Late Show was great.
Wonderful to see this again, it just shows how gormlesss our current crop are.
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.
By being analytical and honest. Hitchens is fabulous.
Thanks so much for posting; oddly enough, this remains contemporary :: also, Hitchens, as per: Dazzles ✨
You're welcome. I'm glad you're enjoying it. I have a few more to work on.
@@legalmonkey this is glorious news 🌟 😄 !! Thanks, thanks and ever thanks.
@@johnjosmith42 Meh. Hitchens' vacuous smugness comes off as just swarmy. He is witty, tho.
Thoroughly enjoyed, what professional respectable gentlemen!
Thank you for this!
Thank you for sharing this terrific footage; it's depressing to think that Meese is the only man still standing.
I was about to say that.
You're welcome. Thank you.
Well, a sociopath with no conscience is not affected by age
Great upload - thanks a lot! Something I'd not seen of Christopher Hitchens...very rare commodity
You're welcome. Thanks for the nice comment. Glad you enjoyed it.
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."_
nonsense.
@@johnwatts8346 Demonstrable true.
Time well spent: watching this. Time not well spent: reading the comments.
Thank you for uploading this. Superb.
You're welcome. :)
This is civil discourse at its best. Unlike the shouty pissing contests which characterise the current media landscape. I miss Clive James😢
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.
Civil, yet treacherous. These awful people deserve to be called out on their horrendous ideologies and outright lies.
@@ajahnpadawan8812ad hominem. don't pout because of your inefficiencies.
@@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…
@@ajahnpadawan8812 Not sure Hitchens ever claimed to be a genius.
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.
Hitchens sits on the sidelines and pontificates but could never be in the arena. That makes him an intellectual coward.
@@egverlander An intellectual coward? The world would be a much better place if we had more of them.
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.
@@rstevens7711 All bullies are cowards. He is an intellectual bully. Watch his atheism book tour, moralistic diatribes.
Three of the funniest men who ever lived in one room. That'll do me.....
Clive James, Hitchens and Meese
@@roryoconnor6574 Three of the funniest men who ever lived, in one room.
@UFO: ok.....it's 'in one room'....😬
I'd say three of the funniest men who lived together in one room would have been the Marx Brothers. (Gummo and Zeppo had another room.)
I'd say that O'Rourke's book "Holidays in Hell" was one of the funniest books I've ever read. Highly recommended.
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.
Great upload - discourse of a quality you have no chance of seeing today.
What a fantastic discussion. Thank you for sharing this.
Horrible forum. They all cut off Hitchens, who very patiently suffered their Nazi crap talk
Great discussion. Clive was always a great interviewer/moderator.
He was horrible. Obviously biased.
Meh
@@arriuscalpurniuspisowhat to the middle?
His bias merely evened the numbers which seems fair ,and he was way more tolerant than Hitchens.
Fantastic. Thank you so much
Wow, I'm delighted to find this clip. It's too late tonight to watch it, but I shall do so tomorrow.
Thanks for this. Fascinating.
Thanks for this.
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.
a top bloke - he knew all the great and respected ppl with talent. one of the few Aussies I like.
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!
I disagree, and with time, PJ looks a much more clear thinking on the issue. Hitchens would sound more like PJ late in his life.
@@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.
@@harmon1103 Yipe.
Oh FAB! A Hitchens interview I haven't seen -- with the bonus of PJ O'Rourke!
9.34 Re. flippancy. The Hitch well and truly put in his place and brought to heel by P.J. O'Rourke. Witheringly so in fact.
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.
Awe struck at the level of nuance and political discourse...very enlightening.
More, more!
Gold… reasonably respectful discourse by 4 intelligent people on serious subjects.
Wow. Reasoned discussion and articulate disagreement in words of more than two syllables... And nobody called anyone a Nazi once.
Those days are long gone my friend.
If you get a chance, read Clive James autobiography "Unreliable Memoirs" .. the funniest book I've ever read.
Yup read it 42 years ago.
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.
He also screwed Carter with his guns for hostages deals as well as his genocide in Guatemala as charged by The Hague.
@@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.
@@tombombadyl4535 Not great, but pretty good.
Big Hitchens fan but he was unforgivably dull during these exchanges.
Astounding. No wonder our species is in peril.
What a gem
Such class.
Compare this to the empty dullards on BBC Newsnight these days!
We are so much poorer now.
O'Rourke is left twisting in his chair around 24:55 after Hitchens skewers his "joke".
Fascinating. Hitchens powers of articulation vs. Meese eye-witness accounts.
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.
@@calql8er What did he lie about?
@@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.
@@shinybeast8946 I see what happened. This mysterious chris Palmer must have deleted his post wherein he accused Meese of lying.
Hip hip, hooray :)
:)
Thank you, 👏💯🇮🇪
You are very welcome.
I did not know this existed. There just is not enough footage of P.J. O’Rourke, and here he is with Clive James, and Clive James. Thank you so much.
?! Clive James, P.J. O’Rourke, and Christopher Hitchens.
How discussion, disagreement, debate is done with mutual respect. The good old days ✌🏻🥹
Wow .. this was recorded before the Lockerbie Bombing... Gadafi was hardly dissauded from terrorism by F1-11 bombing on Tripoli
Four brilliant minds !
PJ is a light weight amongst James and Hitchens.
Oh my goodness. Clive James + Christopher Hitchens.
This is great. Where do you find this gold ?
*Hitchens and James were friends- Hitchens spoke highly of James and James of Hitchens.*
@@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.
@@gamingwithslacker *No not at all, James was a out-right friend of Hitchens along the lines of Rushdie, Amis, Fenton et al.*
@@MattSingh1 all used to lunch together every Friday I believe, Along with Martin Amis and a few others.
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...
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
Where did you hood to progress too ?
Utopia?
O'Rourke wasnt in the least terrified and very effectively slapped Hitch into place with his return on "flippancy".
Three of them wanted a discussion and Hitchens wanted to be righteous and belligerent.
@Don´tbehasty unlike ideologues he did let facts influence his positions.
@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.
The liberals were persistently wrong about SDI. So glad Reagan wasn't. So glad this has been preserved!
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.
God what drivel
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.
Excellent - James was indeed a very smart bloke and down to earth with it
Nailed it!
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.
If only being smart equated to effectiveness! As a huge Hitchens fan his eager dourness backfired against his positive company.
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.
I hope you win the lottery my dear chap thank you once again 😎👍
I’m not sure he’s a CH sycophant. Some of his other clips feature Milton Friedman , who is the polar opposite of the idealist Hitchens.
@@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
@ Eddy K 🍻
God, life was good before identity politics and the politics of grievance made us miserable.
Yep, back in the day, U.S. presidents didn't have to profess their love of (the Christian) God, not like now ;-)
So true - I fight it when ever I encounter it - but as an old school free speech leftie I feel the battle is being lost
@@chrisbaxter3597 what can't you say now that you could say 30 years ago?
@@mattygroves21478 Biological men cannot become women - just because they say so - that’s one - do you really need me to carry on
@@chrisbaxter3597 You said the unsayable it seems.
Out of curiousity, can you define a biological man?
Not often you saw Christopher Hitchens bettered and out argued .... but this is one of them. Great stuff from all involved in fairness
You wish
@@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 Wrong.
@@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.
Delusional
I wish people could still talk about global topics in this way. Just great stuff
9:36 - "can you?" - very sharp.
... Hitchens (whose brilliancy is obvious), puts forth such an absolute confidence that, when proved wrong, he falls from very high...
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.
Hitchens in his last years would hate this HItchens
Oh my dear boy
What a quorum! Won't see this again in our lifetimes.
The older I get, the more I realise that, although Hitch was 'clever', he wasn't always 'right'.
Hitch would agree.
he rather got routed here , all very elegantly of course. A rare defeat for him
The simple fact is although Christopher Hitchens was an extraordinary debater & polemical pugilist, he lacked wisdom.
@@autodidact537 Or perspective.
WTF ! Hitchens quit rightly predicted Reagan would b e remembered as one of the worst presidents ever.
Out of these four , Edwin Meese is the only one still around .
Spin Doctor Meese.
Pathetic partisan hack. Just because he keeps repeating “I know, I was there” , he thinks we’ll all believe him.
I am continually impressed with Politician's ability to manipulate semantics.
05:40
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.
Nice trio of commentary ... Not seen clive for a good while.
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!
Such a refreshingly polite discussion between complete opposites of opinion.
Exceptional service to civil debate.
They seem so much more articulate than current pundits and politicians.
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.
At this phase of our political life i don't think there's any question that Reagan lied about most things he spoke on.
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.
My three teenage heroes. Still.
You old
@@britpackdog4545 not yet 50. I started early.
@@liberalmatt wow
@@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.
@@liberalmatt not being sarcastic my guy I'm 50 and all my chickens came home to roost
Why no talk shows like this anymore? Amazing. And Clive is no liberal.
Funny how this debate contrasts with the largely benign view of Reagan that seems to apply now. Clive's words at the end are quite prophetic.
It felt like my brain quadrupled in size for the entire 43 minutes, 40 seconds.
4 articulate and intelligent men. Wonderful debate.
Meese was such a worm.
It’s always been going on!!!!
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.
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.
Except, about the facts.
@@ttacking_you and that it's two against one ...
@ Stephen Church. 2v2 or did you skip Jame’s introduction?
@@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.
Meese ... what rot
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.”
They talk about curtailing Libyan terrorism, yet less than six weeks after this ran was the tragedy of Lockerbie
That is a very important counter to Messe's point.... But my reading of Paul Foote's long form work points to another player... Who now thinks much of the USS Vincennes 'incident' July 88.
Almost certainly not the work of Libyans.
Who else just fast forwards to when Hitchens speaks ? 😂
Not me.
It was exceptionally difficult to best Hitch in any polemic but he met his match in these two. If the subject under discussion had been nearly anything else in world history or literature he would have been on much firmer ground to the point of having been seen as giving a tutorial. I couldn't abide the man after he became somewhat slovenly owing to excessive reliance on what he tenderly called "the amber restorative" but by his later years I just could not help but admire and respect him greatly.
I'm not sure that "well, the Brits used to crack down hard on the natives when they had an empire" qualifies as "besting" someone who had always been a critic of that empire. And as for "we didn't deal with the kidnappers, we went through a third party", I suppose you can't expect much else from a man arguing that first duty of government is to crack jokes.
Cheers Liam.
You're very welcome.
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"?
Soviets werent that stupid.
BTW, Khruschev banged his shoe at the UN and said "We will bury you!"
Well it worked didn’t it?
Don't love O'Rourke but I fkng love that tie on the pink shirt
best thing he ever did