Baruch Bloodbath

Well, not really. But as someone who attended the event, last night's debate between George Galloway and Christopher Hitchens was an interesting experience. You had two very polished debaters, a controversial topic (Iraq) which inflames deep passions on both sides, a fairly rabid crowd, glitterati onlookers such as the hysterical Katrina vanden Heuvel, metal detectors and a timekeeper named Elizabeth Wrigley Field (no, I'm not joking). So all of the key elements were in place for an incendiary event.

So did it meet expectations? Not quite. While both Galloway and Hitchens displayed strong rhetorical flourishes, I'm afraid that the discussion rather quickly descended into the sort of disengaged argumentation which has typified the debate since probably a month before the invasion of Iraq. Both sides, deeply entrenched in their positions, simply talk past one another and there is precious little engagement. And once that happens, personal attacks and raw emotions surface. Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised. After all, this has unfortunately been my personal experience in debating Iraq, as well. It almost doesn't pay to discuss one of the most important issues of the day because it will ultimately turn into an ugly shouting match.

And so it was with Galloway-Hitchens. Hitchens spoke first and methodically laid out a strong, logical case for the war. Galloway countered with a meandering succession of cheap, well-worn broadsides which seemed a desperate attempt to play to the passions of the crowd. And thus, the devolution began.

My hopes for deeper engagement on substance went largely unrealized, I believe, because of the uncompromising positions of the participants as well as the contrast in their styles. And indeed it was an odd pairing. Hitchens is a more logical, understated and cerebral speaker. He organizes facts, builds an argument and presents strong conclusions. Galloway, on the other hand, is a fiery orator who peppers his opponents with staccato sound bites and petty insults. This campaign rally style certainly whips the crowd into a frenzy but does precious little to advance the dialogue on substance. Sure, it sounds great. But where's the beef? It was probably at about the point where Galloway argued that 9/11 didn't "come out of a clear blue sky, but out of a swamp of hatred created by us" that the "debate" for all intents and purposes was over. To that point, Hitchens had tried to engage his opponent on key points, even going so far as to organize Galloway's arguments relative to his own for the crowd. But once the Ward Churchill "chickens coming home to roost" argument had been advanced, I think Hitchens sort of threw up his hands in realization that the politician Galloway was content to simply win the popularity contest.

Interestingly, however, once things descended to that level I found Galloway's argumentation to be more compelling. Not convincing, but compelling. Perhaps this was because Hitchens had switched off and was now playing on Galloway's turf; turf with which he is not as familiar as George. But even so, when one looks at the substantive issues, Hitchens had won the debate once Galloway's first fifteen minutes were up. Galloway did precious little in the way of attacking Hitchens' case and didn't even do a good job of presenting the Unhinged Left's talking points. Unless you consider "...Hitchens, Bush, Cheney and the rest of the neocon gang..." and "The US and UK are the biggest rogue states in the world" to be legitimate support of the anti-war case, then you were really left to ask whether Galloway is capable of preaching to anyone other than his own choir.

Although I was somewhat disappointed with the debate itself, as an event it was a very interesting thing to see and I'll be blogging more about it intermittently throughout the day.