Hari to Hitchens: 'Come Home' [Updated]

Hardly a day goes by when some or another lefty email blast clogging up my Inbox doesn’t denounce, revile, indict, or curse Christopher Hitchens.

I got tired of this ritual a long time ago. Not only because I count Christopher as a friend. But also because I admire his intelligence and talent – even while disagreeing with many of his conclusions.

Leaving the Left can be a bit like trying to quit the Mafia. You can’t get out without getting assassinated – literally or figuratively. The Left, infused with a “class-struggle-a-world-to-win” ethic, tends to look upon its apostates not only as enemies, but as downright traitors.

The Hate Hitchens fad began to bud when he bucked the “progressive” capitulation to defend Bill Clinton—that sorry spectacle of liberals and socialists scurrying behind Big Bill and apologizing for behavior that they would have screamed to high heaven about if he had been a Republican. The anti-Hitchens scorn bloomed when Christopher fully supported the post 9-11 attack on the Taliban/AlQaeda. And it came to full flower when he quit his twenty-year stint as a columnist for The Nation.

Hitchens’ detractors variously argue he “sold out” (though he was making a quite handsome income long before he “defected”) or that he has become some sort of seedy drunk destined for an inglorious end.

But profiling him this week in the London Independent, leftist playwright and writer Johann Hari paints a wonderfully complex picture of Hitchens after conducting a wide-ranging interview. Hitchens stands firm against Kissinger, denounces the death penalty, supports Palestinian rights, but concludes – as a “single-issue voter", he is endorsing George W. Bush. The war against Islamic Fascism trumps all other issues, Hitchens argues, and on that matter he prefers the incumbent.

I share Hitchens’ dark view of Islamic extremism. I strongly disagree with his view of Bush, as well as his unflinching support for the war Iraq. I most certainly don’t share his rather unique and sympathetic read of Paul Wolfowitz.

Writer Hari reaches similar conclusions to mine both in his Independent article as well in a separate piece on his personal blog.

In the end, Hari says he feels “simultaneously roused by Hitch’s argument and strangely disconcerted” and ultimately issues a plea for him to re-join the left saying: “Come home, Hitch – we need you.”

I doubt Hitch is about to heed that call. But all this got me wondering… that the political litmus test that Leftists often apply to those around them reminds me of the racial purity tests favored by the old South African apartheid regime. There were all sort of official categories of “colored” or “black” depending on what percentage of impure blood one possessed.

But to be “white” – you had to be 100% white—the old One Drop Rule. So, sorry, Hitch. It seems that your opposition to capital punishment, to racism and to fascism is all outweighed by your other heretical views in the eyes of thousands of self-satisfied leftists. Whatever you have to say lacks relevance, why bother to even read you, as you have betrayed the cause? You’re but a drunken, celebrity-crazed traitor.

The truly disconcerting part of all this, to borrow a descriptor from Hari, is that lefties rarely apply this purity test to those who stand to their purported left (but who, in reality, are reactionary enemies of democracy).

Example: Hitchens is drummed out of the left because his interpretation of anti-fascism brings him to support certain U.S. government policies and even the President. But what consequences among leftists does, say, Ramsey Clark reap for joining, literally, in the defense of Milosevic and Saddam? Anybody call him a traitor to the left recently?

What about college-activist favorite Michael Parenti who actually boasts that Slobo was a socialist, and anti-imperialist no less? What price does Parenti pay on the left for peddling such rubbish?

Just who on the left refuses to work with International A.N.S.W.E.R. whose propaganda denounces Bush but praises Kim il Sung? Did anyone care that the Not In Our Name campaign, that got squishy anti-war liberals to line up behind it, was organized by the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party, by folks who have defended, I might point out, the public execution of drug users?

Oh perish the very thought! Dare to criticize any of those folks from within the left and it’s tantamount to McCarthyism. But trashing a great mind like Hitchens, publicly condemning him as a traitor, a delusional alcoholic or as a queer, as Alexander Cockburn did? Well, no, that’s just sport, comrade.

UPDATE: Given the high level of interest in this subject, I'm linking to another piece on Hitch written last year by Dennis Perrin -- a sometimes commenter on this blog. His Obit For A Former Contrarian appeared in the Minneapolis City Pages.

There's also this meditation on this same matter today by Norman Geras. While he also laments Hitchens' divorce from the left, Geras argues that idenitifying someone today as being on the Right or the Left has lesser meaning than determining one's adherence to a set of democratic principles. Hear, hear!

I'm also adding this link to Hitchens' latest hard-edged piece published today on Slate.com.

Comments

[Tom Grey]

Mr. Sour Dour Marc Cooper himself does a great job in showing the double standard the Leftist have about anybody who disagrees with them. For now it's Hitch (Christopher Hitchens), who is about as Leftist as they come in terms of being anti-fascist. But, because he supports Pres. Bush he is a "traitor" to the Left!

Long ago any pro-life anti-fascists were excommunicated. Now it's any who support US military strikes against Islamofascists, or maybe it's only strikes ordered by a Rep?

In fact, anti-Iraq war has become a new Leftist Truth, and no matter how much somebody supports other fascists, if they oppose operation Iraqi Freedom, they can be accepted as Leftist members in good faith.

[Michael J. Totten]

God I've waited a long time to read a piece like this. The reason I said last week that I would not have left the left if you were typical instead of contrarian is because I knew you had this post in you somewhere. Thanks.

Bush will probably be president next year, in part because of what you just wrote about.

[GMRoper]

What MJT said!

Sadly, however, it's just as bad on the extreme right. If you favor gay marriage (I do) or civil unions (likewise), if you are not rabidly pro-life (I am pro-life, but I am not about to kill anyone over it) you are anathema and as such, any thoughts you may have you DO NOT have the right to them or to utter them. (Although, I must believe that the disease is even worse on the left…. They are such fun to watch as they pseudo-logically attempt to immolate their own.)

Perhaps the need to keep our political leanings pure acts as a drug on the brain. The very human need to belong (Maslow said belongingness is one of of the five basic needs) sometimes manifests itself as a need to exclude. Hence, apartheid; hence political purity.

That said, Marc a great post. You really ought to consider Hitchens position as one you could adopt. :-)

[steve]

But trashing a great mind like Hitchens, publicly condemning him as a traitor, a delusional alcoholic or as a queer, as Alexander Cockburn did? Well, no, that’s just sport, comrade.

--That seems rather harmless compared to declaring that those who opposed the bombing of Afghanistan supported Al Qaeda and thought of them as revolutionary, which was Hitch's accusation at the time. Actually, it's not the Hitchens types that are excluded, they have lots of opportunities to trash leftists in mainstream media as do people like Todd Gitlin or Alan Wolfe on the pages of the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. They're hardly excluded in any serious manner. Very welcome on NPR's Talk of the Nation or All Things Considered.
There's also one other odd element of Hitchens playing victim. He initiated the departure from the Nation and they actually let him know he was welcome to come back!! Yet, from this, we end up with the myth of Hitch as an Apartheid victim of some sort. I guess The Nation should have handed over editorship to Hitch and then he wouldn't have felt so victimized.

[Brian Siano]

I hope it's no surprise that I'd second your comments on Hitchens. I've always admired his writing, and I like to think that the sense I drew of his own integrity wasn't just a matter of his writing style. I did support the invasion of Afghanistan, uneasily, and Hitchens' articles were about the only arguments I'd heard from a source I really respected.

As for the Left's reaction to Hitchens, I wasn't exactly surprised. I saw the same tribal reactions when friends complained about my voting for Nader in 2000. Utterly amazing to watch, people: friends who counted themselves as open, caring, progressive, gay-friendly Champions of Justice were suddenly spouting rumors about Nader's personal life that _Forbes_ magazine would have blanched at. So I'm not impressed by claims about Hitchens' personal life, or silly claims about "selling out."

[Joe]

I think the problem is worse on the Left. I present as anecdotal evidence the popular blogs on each side.

The most popular Conservative blog is Instapundit which is authored by someone who is pro-gay marriage, ambivalent on abortion, and very likely to criticize republicans.

The most popular Lefty blog is KOS which is a toe-the-line Lefty site.

I am firmly in the Bush camp, but find it quite easy to discuss moderation in social issues with other Republicans. I also can't find any who compared Clinton to Hitler...

[Xhosa2010]

Yawn! Yet another simplistic and naive argument about Hitchens, Bush, the Big Straw Man, and the War on Terror. The Big Straw Man is the Leftie in favor of accommodation with Islamic terrorists. And, yes, of course some are; as are many on the right. And of course Hitchens is correct to attack the Left for any accommodation with Islamic fascism. But what about the right: Buchannan, Norquist, for starters; Cheney--Halliburton's dealings with Iran for instance? I'm just not sure of the issue here: Is it that Bush is better or Hitchens is right to take the Left to the woodshed? As one gay Leftie who (I believe) sees just how large the task is before us in fighting Islamic terror, Islamic fascism, and, if necessary, Islam unless it reforms (see Robert Spencer's writings), I find Bush's actions are entirely counterproductive. Afghanistan was correct, until our troops were pulled; Iraq a disaster for us. We don't need just any War on Terror, we need the correct one. Sadly, Hitchens bought into Bush's big lie about Iraq. In my view, Saudi Arabia should have been a sea of glass Sept 12 2001. SA, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Sudan: these are our primary enemies. Saddam was merely repulsive and cruel.

[Dennis Perrin]

Well, I've been publicly critical of Hitch (and privately to him), and I don't fit the handy stereotype above (check the LBO Talk archives for that). Yes, there are lefties who are religious about their politics and intolerant of those who buck them, but this is hardly the sole property of the left. And Marc, you've dismissed those who disagree with you in the same manner that you deplore above. Part of taking an active stand in a violent, chaotic world. Not always pretty or even consistent. To quote someone I wrote extensively about years ago, we're humans, that is to say, assholes.

Hitch can believe whatever he wants. I could care less if he's a neocon, recovering Trot (same thing?), born again capitalist, raging warmonger, whatever. But one thing Hitch is not is an innocent victim of the McCarthyite Left. He picked plenty of fights after 9/11, calling people out, slamming those he once considered close friends and comrades. Like those Marc lambastes, Hitch held himself up as the acme of New Political Virute, and those who fell short were reviled by him in print and in person as soft on fascism, etc. Hitch loves to fight -- the nastier the better. Don't shed tears for him. He eats this shit up with a wooden spoon.

Hitch mouths some pro-Palestinian rhetoric, but he hasn't written anything on their behalf in some time, which is really outrageous when you consider his past body of work on this issue and the worsening conditions for the Palestinians under the Israeli boot. I asked him repeatedly why he wasn't writing about this vital topic, and he told me that the Palestinian cause was lost, they're doomed no matter what, and that the best they can do are bantustans. So that's that. Wash your hands and leave the room. If he were ever to revisit the issue in book form, I'll bet the title will be "Ignoring the Victims."

That's just one example of Hitch's new world view. There are many others that show him fudging facts, constructing wild contradictations, citing false history and engaging in wishful imperial thinking. Hitch is not above criticism on these fronts -- indeed, he deserves it. Let's talk about that instead of patting our backs about how we're not like those granola nazis who wave ANSWER signs at Islamofascist rallies in favor of videotaped beheadings.

[Dennis Perrin]

"Virute"

Virtue. Pardon my dyslexia.

[Dennis Perrin]

"contradictations"

Contradictions. I've been typin' too fast . . .

[steve]

And Marc, you've dismissed those who disagree with you in the same manner that you deplore above.

--that's quite correct, i'm reminded of Totten, who also sees himself as a victim of left exclusion, calling leftists with whom he disagrees on issues like the bombing of afghanistan or occupying Iraq as unpatriotic or anti-american 'cheerleaders of GI deaths'. Somehow that kind of rhetoric is the kind of stuff of reason and civil debate. When The Nation pleads with Hitchens to stay on despite disagreements with his views on Iraq and Afghanistan, that somehow gets turned into an act comparable to 'apartheid'. The double standard is astounding.

[Randy Paul]

If Bush is reëlected and continues to gut environmental regulations, appoints judges who are more beholden to Antonin Scalia's agenda rather than the US Constitution and continues to consider the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture, the first time Hitchens complains, I hope someone reminds him that life is much more complex than a single issue.

[Big Time Patriot]

"I think the problem is worse on the Left. I present as anecdotal evidence the popular blogs on each side"

Of course, Blogs are more favored by the left (and the more intelligent conservatives), if we look at the rights more favored medium, talk radio, we see the 'big tent' of conservative inclusion as represented by Rush Limbaugh, a man who is widely known as a respector of those who have opposing views, particularly if they are "femi-nazis".

[Marc Cooper]

Randy... what you said.

[PJ]

Maybe Hari feels "strangely disconcerted" because he is hearing truth rather than cant.

All the hot buttons of the left--abortion, gay marriage, the Patriot Act, Supreme Court appointments, military reform--can be fixed; being mass murdered while sitting in your cubicle or on your train is final.

I would agree with your anticipated comments that this is fear mongering except that these things have already happened, are reality, are happening all over the world. Tehran boasts it has missiles that can hit London, Paris and Berlin. Gosh, I hope we can cure the root causes of terrorism before they fire them off.

[Tom Grey]

Marc, I think Bush-hate on SC appointments is quite valid; I'm sure he'd be under pressure to appoint pro-life judges, and the country could have some nasty confirmation fights.

But: beholden to Antonin Scalia's agenda rather than the US Constitution is REALLY funny; there ain't no abortion, ain't even no privacy written there; no reason that sodomy laws are a federal matter -- but most liberals are glad to get rid of anti-gay laws (I am; but I oppose pro-gay laws).

The SC has the power to make the US Constitution say whatever they want it to say, with respect to specific cases, one by one. And while decisions are seldom fully overrulled, new cases can and do move the edges, and directions.

[Peter K.]

Dennis the Menace is lying again.

"Hitch mouths some pro-Palestinian rhetoric, but he hasn't written anything on their behalf in some time, " etc.

He's done a lot lately, like on Tim Russert's show Saturday night he said Jewish zealot settlers are to blame for the current impasse. Very neocon... I doubt he's ever said it was hopeless.

Dennis, on an Australian radio show last month, the host who's an old friend of Hitchens asked him about that backstabbing piece you wrote. His response was classic Hitchens. It even made me wince.

[Peter K.]

Dennis the Menace is lying again.

"Hitch mouths some pro-Palestinian rhetoric, but he hasn't written anything on their behalf in some time, " etc.

He's done a lot lately, like on Tim Russert's show Saturday night he said Jewish zealot settlers are to blame for the current impasse. Very neocon... I doubt he's ever said it was hopeless.

Dennis, on an Australian radio show last month, the host who's an old friend of Hitchens asked him about that backstabbing piece you wrote. His response was classic Hitchens. It even made me wince.

[Randy Paul]

Tom Grey:

Allow me to elaborate re: Scalia: more of the type of SCOTUS Justice that will think so poorly of the public and so grandly of himself that will not see a possible conflict in sharing a duckblind in the Louisiana bayous with the VPOTUS and later passing judgment on a case involving the aforementioned VPOTUS.

[Josh Legere]

Thanks for this. Cooper can probably relate to the sectarian wrath. He had to tolerate a tremendous amount of nonsense during the “Pacifica crisis” and the “liberation” of KPFK.

Hitchens is my hero and always will be. He is right to opposed Islamic Fascism vigorously. The Left has always been soft on totalitarianism. Neither can the Left tolerate anyone that does not accept the consensus.

It is absurd that the Left stands behind Amy Goodman, ANSWER, Ramsey Clark, Chomksy, no matter how contradictory to Left values they might be. It is probably due to the domination of 60's era sectarianism on the left. The Left has absorbed the worst that the New Left had to offer. Many of the "second thoughts" esque New Lefties are continuously bullied and silenced by the more vocal sectarian forces.

Walzer wrote a valuable piece for Dissent just after 911 titles, “Can There Be A Decent Left?”
. http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/archives/2002/sp02/decent.shtml . It really does apply these days.

The strident sectarianism can best be witnessed by certain people who post on this blog. The left can learn a lot more from the contrarian voices than those that are unflinching members of the family.

The Nation has suffered due to the loss of Hitch. Naomi Klein’s column is not only boring but also irrelevant and lately bordering on insanity. Pollit and Williams have gotten real boring as well. Cockburn is just plain awful.

Cooper’s interview with Hitch on Radio Nation a while back is worth trying to find.

[Dennis Perrin]

"I doubt he's ever said it was hopeless."

He certainly said it to me. But believe what you want, Peter.

Hitch has said a few things in interviews about the Palestinians, but he has not written about them in any extensive way of late (unless there's a piece on the way). If he has, I'd love to read it.

To you my piece may have been "backstabbing," but I showed it to Hitch before it appeared, and told him about it while I was writing it. There's plenty of affection in that piece, and positive statements as well. That I don't genuflect before his every utterance may lead some to see darker motives at work, but I was pretty above board and honest in that piece, whether you like it or not.

[steve]

Neither can the Left tolerate anyone that does not accept the consensus.

--by which you mean consensus as in "anyone who agrees with Josh".
--------------------------------
It is absurd that the Left stands behind Amy Goodman, ANSWER, Ramsey Clark, Chomksy, no matter how contradictory to Left values they might be.

--if you ever visited a left discussion board like LBO-Talk or PEN-L, you'd know that what you say is simply false. There is plenty of discussion that is critical about all 4, though at least at points it is about things they actually have said or did as opposed to stuff imagined up in moments of sardonic anger.
-------------------------------
Many of the "second thoughts" esque New Lefties are continuously bullied and silenced by the more vocal sectarian forces.

--when you say 'bullied', i think what you mean is they are challenged, at which point the cry of 'victimization' is bound to follow soon.
---------------------------------
The strident sectarianism can best be witnessed by certain people who post on this blog. The left can learn a lot more from the contrarian voices than those that are unflinching members of the family.

--hold it, you can say that with a straight face after calling people who disagree with you 'anti-american' 'america hating', 'lovers of fill in the blank', etc.? I mean are you really a fair and balanced provider of discourse? You make claims about 'new leftism' of people like Frances Fox Piven that are utterly baseless. You claim I'm a pacifist because I disagree with you--even while arguing me *because* I support the right of armed resistance to the current US occupation of Iraq...
-------------------------------
The Nation has suffered due to the loss of Hitch.

--He *voluntarily* left, was never pressured to leave and when he did leave, they publicly offered him his writing post back whenever he should choose to return! This is an example of 'victimization'? Hardly.
-------------------------------------

[steve]

Dennis wrote:
That I don't genuflect before his every utterance may lead some to see darker motives at work, but I was pretty above board and honest in that piece, whether you like it or not.

--indeed, namecalling and accusations of betrayal are cast at you from self-perceived victims of the Left's "apartheid" for criticising Hitchens. The irony never ends?

[Frydek-Mistek]

What an insight Marc, Neskutecne(unbelievable), you've figured out that some American leftists(just like everybody else in the world) are capable of hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness. In my country, the Czech Republic, SOME Communists continue to stupidly glorify the previous totalitarian regime as having been a perfect democracy. SOME leftists are guilty of this, does that give you licence to stereotype the whole left.
I would also like to comment on the statement that, "Leaving the left can be a bit like leaving the Mafia. You can't get out without getting assassinated-literally or figuratively". Maybe I'm the ignorant one, but isn't this a bit of questionable hyperbole. Mr. Hitchens having to endure derogatory e-mails and articles is hardly the same thing as leaving the mafia. As you already know, after the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia Communists who left the party were not allowed to make a nice living, write books etc.
One last thing, people should lay off Mr. Hichens but we can denounce Michael Moore as a, "political buffoon". It can be diificult to keep track of who's in and who's out.

Frydek-Mistek

[Steve Smith]

The "left" that you refer to seems like a fairly marginalized group. I guess the reason I don't spend much time denouncing ANSWER or Michael Parenti is that their views don't impact my life in any way; it is unlikely that any policymaker will ever be influenced by those fringies (and who knew Ramsey Clark was still alive?), and opposition to the Afghan War was a minority position, even on the Left, so it can hardly be said that Hitchens suffered with his former allies because of that position. And I thought Clinton-bashing was supposed to have been trendy on the Left; I don't remember the Nation giving the Clenis much love before Ken Starr entered the picture.

The reason why Hitchens' present-day sycophancy about the Bush Administration gets treated with such contempt has more to do with the brutal way he's always treated people he's disagreed with in the past (at least in print; I've never met the guy, so he might be a real mensch in person). If, like Hitchens, you're prepared to always assume the worst about your ideological adversaries, and adopt a take-no-prisoners style in attacking them, some feelings are bound to be rubbed the wrong way.