I am reading an interesting book about one of my intellectual heroes, the late Christopher Hitchens. The book’s author, coming from the political left, argues that Hitchens got a lot right, but erred seriously in his support for both the “War on Terrorism” and the Iraq War during the first decade of the 21st century. Hitchens began his intellectual journey as a socialist and by 2004 was oddly all in on Bush’s foreign policy in the Middle East. The author also critically deconstructs some of the arguments Hitchens' made in debates about religion.

A couple points come to mind as I reflect on Hitchens and his thinking. For one, his mistakes make him more—not less—useful to thinkers today. The book emphasizes that studying where Hitchens went wrong sharpens our own judgment. Heroes aren’t templates; they’re case studies. His intellectual courage, eloquence, and range remain valuable, but so do the cautionary lessons that grew from his rhetorical confidence and general arrogance. Additionally, I am reminded that admiration doesn’t require full agreement about everything—especially with complicated figures like Hitch. Indeed, there is no one I likely agree with on everything. In my mind, Hitchens' error about Iraq does not tarnish his overall body of intellectual work. For instance, I love his book god Is Not Great, but thought his attacks on Buddhism to be feeble and a wasted effort.

But none of this diminishes Hitchens' importance. If anything, it makes him more useful. Hitchens shows us that admiration doesn’t always require absolute agreement and that inspiration doesn’t require perfection. For me, he remains a case study in how a thinker can be both brilliantly right and consequentially wrong—and still worth reading, wrestling with, and learning from.