[update below] [2nd update below]
I just learned that Alexander Cockburn died. Just seven months after his onetime confrère and fellow US-based British pundit-polemicist Christopher Hitchens. As I wrote a sort of tribute to Hitchens back then, I suppose I should write one for Cockburn too. I was a fan of Cockburn back in my gauchiste days and followed his writings closely, from 1979—when I first started to read him in The Village Voice—to 1984 or ’85, when I ceased to be a fan. I then came to despise him and for all sorts of political reasons, most notably for his defense of the Soviet Union and, in the 1990s, of the Serbs during the wars in the former Yugoslavia (for this, I wanted to punch him in the face). Unlike with Hitchens I didn’t see Cockburn’s writings too often over the past decade, as these mainly appeared on his flaky, ultra-gauchiste CounterPunch website, of which I am definitely not an habitué, though have seen it every now and then over the years, mainly when a gauchiste friend or two hurls a link from it at me. But Cockburn, like Hitchens, remained a great writer and despite his politics—when it comes to polemicizing with style, Brits are superior to Americans—, and took sensible positions on a few issues. And to his credit, I suppose, he rubbished the 9/11 conspiracy theories, which are no doubt adhered to by a sizeable number of his readers (not to mention CounterPunch contributors). (But then, anyone who gives the slightest credence to 9/11 trutherism seriously needs to have his or her head examined). The last piece I read by Cockburn was his farewell tribute to his frère ennemi Hitchens, which I thought was amusing and spot on. Too bad Hitchens isn’t around to write a tribute in kind to Cockburn.
UPDATE: A New York friend, who is well-known in progressive intellectual circles there, has written the following to me: ”I stopped reading AC a long time ago. It was disgraceful that Counterpunch began publishing the likes of Israel Shamir, whose forthcoming piece apparently ‘reveals’ that the Dreyfus Affair had nothing to do with anti-Semitism.” (July 22)
2nd UPDATE: Ronald Radosh, who used to be a leftist—but hasn’t been for a long time now—, has an anti-tribute to Cockburn, whom he didn’t like too much… (July 24)
Arun: Given your political persuasions, I thank you for acknowledging the death of Alexander Cockburn. It won’t surprise you to learn that I considered him the far more honest writer than Christopher Hitchens, with whom he often found himself linked.
Cockburn’s dogmatic commitment to Soviet communism certainly diminished the value of his opinions on certain subjects. Of course, this is true for all of us. I’ve yet to read the political writer who doesn’t betray dogmatic belief that doesn’t permit serious inquiry or challenge on one issue or another. But Cockburn was clearly a man of deep personal integrity and commitment and those two characteristics made him stand up to the pressures of those who disagreed with him (and that was a lot of people).
Counterpunch is certainly a leftist publication (Cockburn created it with Jeffrey St. Clair because he wanted an outlet to the left of The Nation for his and other work). But it’s a serious mistake to simply dismiss Counterpunch because of that. There are many contributors to Counterpunch who provide insight, intelligence, and knowledge that it difficult to find in other parts of the media.
Returning finally to the Cockburn/Hitchens comparison, I’d argue that even Cockburn’s handling of his cancer was more noble than Hitchens. While Hitchens suffered publicly and wrote and was interviewed extensively about it, Cockburn kept his disease a secret from all but the closest of his friends and colleagues. He wanted to continue to do the work that he thought was important; he wanted others to be able to focus on that work; he didn’t want the story to be about him. That’s the opposite of Hitchens.
Dojero, Cockburn was a good writer, no doubt about that. I do not dismiss CounterPunch. I simply do not look at it except on rare occasions, as it is not my cup of tea politically speaking. Like I said, every so often it has an interesting article or features a not bad contributor, but much more often it is simply over the edge for me (what I’ve bothered to read in it). And sometimes it is positively unhinged (e.g. see the above update).