The Fall of the Intellectual

News recently broke that former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, passed away at the age of 99. Kissinger was one of the most influential yet divisive diplomatic figures of the 20th century.

As the central strategist of foreign policy under Presidents Nixon and Ford, Kissinger left an enormous yet exceedingly complex legacy. He pioneered historic openings with China and detente with the Soviet Union, achieving arms control agreements and helping diffuse tensions of the Cold War. Yet he also engineered morally questionable covert operations across the globe, from Chile to East Timor, toppling governments deemed threats to American interests.

To this day, Kissinger remains a remarkably polarizing figure - lauded as a strategic genius by some, while decried as a war criminal by others. Few diplomatic statesmen split public opinion to such stark extremes of hagiography on one side, self-righteous condemnation on the other.

I encourage everyone to watch the recent Kissinger documentary on DW highlighting this Gold Medal-winning Nobel Peace Prize recipient's vastly diverse impact during his long career molding U.S. foreign policy.

The documentary underscores how despite partisan efforts to canonize Kissinger as hero or vilify him a villain, the truth resides somewhere in complex middle ground. Kissinger's globe-spanning shadow demands nuanced evaluation.

As interesting of a man that Henry Kissinger is, this week’s issue is actually not about him. You see, Kissinger’s death reminded to finally read a book which has been in my ‘to-read lists’ for a long time : The Trials of Henry Kissinger by Christopher Hitchens.

Yes, this week’s issue is actually about the late Christopher Eric Hitchens, British author, journalist and perhaps the most influential atheist at the time of his passing.

Hitchens wrote against Kissinger, religion and theology as a whole. Appeared weekly on intellectual debates and charmed with his wit and wisdom.

Kissinger's passing sparked my interest not just due to his historic significance, but because it reminded me of Christopher Hitchens’ fiery polemic “The Trials of Henry Kissinger” which indicted him on war crimes. Beyond writing that scathing book, the late Christopher Hitchens himself deserves remembering as one of the most colorful and controversial public intellectuals of our times.

Hitchens cut a singular figure - an erudite contrarian in an eternal lava-flow of scathing opinions, whiskey and cigarette smoke. The British-American author and journalist parried seamlessly from print polemics to televised debates, skewering targets as diverse as Henry Kissinger, Mother Teresa and religion itself.

Unless you tune in to a 1 hour interview special on Al Jazeera every night, I struggle to name a platform for debate accessible for viewing to everyone which doesn’t devolve a shouting contest between the panel.

The best example of a civil discussion viewed by a massive audience we have today is Piers Morgan Uncensored, the best example of a popular intellectual is probably Jordan Peterson.

Paints a grim picture doesn’t it?

However, I do believe there’s hope in a slightly different direction. Social media and particularly platforms like X (formerly Twitter) have championed the concept of “citizen journalists”.

Public discourse has been decentralized to online discussions or forum threads. Everyday individuals like write extensively about a topic which they possess specialized knowledge in and grow a readership while contributing towards the pursuit for truth.

At the end of the day, that’s what its about isn’t it? Public discourse, whichever direction it may be trending in, continues to edge towards its goal:

Yet I hesitate to overly romanticize today's "citizen journalist" movement. While social media democratizes ideas, misinformation also spreads virally through the same decentralized networks. Outrage and confirmation bias fuel many of the most popular takes, rather than ethics and critical thinking.

We must apply the same rigorous scrutiny towards online amateur punditry as we do to traditional media and experts. Perhaps even more so, as credentials and credibility matter less on the interwebs, which can easily descend into conspiracy echo chambers.

The spirit of Hitchens - questioning the official narrative while backing discourse with facts - remains essential. As JFK put it, the goal is advancing truth, not just proliferating more noise and hot takes.

In that sense, traditional media still offers hope, albeit diminishing. CNN's Fareed Zakaria carries on the tradition of thoughtful commentary aimed at mass viewership, bringing nuance to complex issues. Publications like The Atlantic and The Economist produce insight over inbox-deluging content spray-and-pray.

Platforms matter too - I admire Jordan Peterson for daring to engage charged views, even where I disagree with him. Joe Rogan's informal long-form podcasts, while uneven, can lead to fruitful exchanges given the time and space.

Perhaps we need more shows that blend accessibility with critical discourse. The old PBS show Firing Line with William F. Buckley set a golden standard - could its return or replication online catalyze more uplifting debate?

The democratized, decentralized mediascape offers both risks and rewards. While we lack a singular successor to Hitchens, through collective effort and ethics, the fruits of education and truth can still be spread.