An interview with Christopher Hitchens ("Moral and political collapse" of the Left in the US)

Washington Prism.org ^ | June 16, 2005

[F14 Pilot]

Christopher Hitchens is one of America's and the English speaking world's leading public intellectuals. He is the author of more than ten books, including, most recently, A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq (2003), Why Orwell Matters (2002), The Trial of Henry Kissinger (2001), and Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001). He writes for leading American and British publications, including The London Review of Books, The New Left Review, Slate, The New York Review of Books, Newsweek International, The Times Literary Supplement, and The Washington Post. He is also a regular television and radio commentator.

For many years, Hitchens was seen as one of America's leading leftist commentators. Shortly after the September 11 attacks in the United States, he began publicly criticizing fellow leftist intellectuals for what he viewed as their "moral and political collapse" in their failure to stand up to what he saw as "Islamo-fascism". He publicly feuded with many of America's leading leftist intellectuals about the war in Iraq, which he supported, much to their anger. He subsequently resigned from his position as a columnist for the Nation, America's leading leftist magazine, in protest.

Born in England, Hitchens has lived in the United States for more than twenty years. He is one of America's most recognizable intellectuals and has taught as a visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Pittsburgh; and the New School of Social Research. He spoke with Washington Prism at his home in Washington D.C.

Q - Your much-discussed separation from the American left began shortly after the September 11 attacks. What prompted your displeasure with the left?

A - The September 11 attacks were one of those rare historical moments, like 1933 in Germany or 1936 in Spain or 1968, when you are put in a position to take a strong stand for what is right. The left failed this test. Instead of strongly standing against these nihilistic murderers, people on the left, such as Noam Chomsky, began to make excuses for these murderers, openly saying that Bin ladin was, however crude in his methods, in some ways voicing a liberation theology. This is simply a moral and political collapse.

But its not only that. It’s a missed opportunity for the left. Think of it this way: If a group of theocratic nihilists drive planes full of human beings into buildings full of human beings announcing nothing by way of a program except their nihilism and if they turn out to have been sheltered by two regimes favored by the United States and the national security establishment, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to be precise, two of only three countries to recognize the Taliban, and if Republicans were totally taken by surprise by this and if the working class of New York had to step forward and become the shield of society in the person of the fire and police brigades, it seemed to me that this would have been a good opportunity for the left to demand a general revision of all the assumptions we carried about the post cold war world. We were attacked by a religious dictatorship and the working class were pushed into defending elites by the total failure of our leadership and total failure of our intelligence. The attack emanated partly from the failure of regimes supported by that same elite national security establishment– Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. If the left can’t take advantage of a moment like that: whats it for? whats its secularism for? Whats its internationalism, class attitude, democracy for?

You don’t get that many measurable historical moments in your life, but you must recognize them when they come. This was one of those moments and the left collectively decided to get it wrong and I realized at that moment that, to borrow a slogan that slightly irritates me, but is useful: "Not in my name.” I'm not part of that family. I wanted to force a split, a political split on the left to which a small extent I think succeeded. Today, there is a small pro-regime change left and I'm a proud part of it.

Q - It seems that the left had less difficulty accepting the war in Afghanistan as they did the war in Iraq.

That is true, but of the hard core left it isn’t true. They also opposed the removal of the Taliban. When it came to using force, the least they did was predict a quagmire. By the way, there weren't alone. The New York Times did so too. They said at minimum we would witness another Vietnam, which is a pretty serious charge to make as someone who believes that then and now the Vietnam war was a war of aggression and atrocity and racism. When someone says something is another Vietnam, they better be serious because that’s a serious charge.

But lets look at the case of Iraq and the left. If you asked someone who has the principles of a 1968 leftist the following question: what is your attitude to a regime that has committed genocide, invaded its neighbors, militarized its society into a police state, that has privatized its economy so it is owned by one family, that has defied the non proliferation treaty in many ways, that sought weapons to commit genocide again and cheated on inspections, that has abolished the existence of a neighboring arab muslim state? What is your view of this as anyone who is a 1968 leftist? For me, I would be appalled if anyone knew me even slightly would not guess my attitude. Iraq should have been taken care of a long time ago. Instead, when I made my view public, I was berated by the left and my view was seen as an insane eccentricity.

I should also note that I have friends and comrades in the Iraqi and Kurdish left going back at least till the early 1990s. For me, supporting the war was an elementary duty of solidarity. I said: I'm on your side and I’ll stay there until you’re in and they’re out.

Q - If there was a Democratic president on 9/11, would there have been a difference of opinion in the American left about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Not from people like Michael Moore (the American film director and strong critic of President Bush), who makes a perfectly good brownshirt [fascist]. Or Noam Chomsky. No, it would not. To them it would have been further proof that the ruling class just has two faces and one party. But I think, in the mainstream of the democratic and Republican parties, you would have seen an exact switch. Richard Holbrooke’s position (Holbrooke was Clinton's UN Ambassador and is a leading Democratic foreign policy thinker) would be Dick Cheney’s position. The ones in the middle would have just done a switch, finding arguments to support or criticize the war. In fact, I remember that people in the Clinton administration spoke of an inevitable confrontation coming with Saddam. They dropped this idea only because it was a Republican president. That is simply disgraceful. It is likewise disgraceful how many Republicans ran as isolationists against [former Vice-President] Al Gore in the 2000 elections. The only people who come out of this whole affair well are an odd fusion of the old left – the small pro regime change left – and some of the people known as neoconservatives who have a commitment to liberal democracy. Many of the neocons have Marxist backgrounds and believe in ideas and principles and have worked with both parties in power.

Q – In your book, Why Orwell Matters, you noted that Orwell once refused an invitation to speak at the League of European Freedom on the question of Yugoslavian freedom – a cause he believed in. He refused to speak because he felt that the organization failed to condemn British imperialism in India and Burma. He saw that as a fatal flaw. Do the neoconservatives have a fatal flaw: on the one hand supporting Middle East democracy, on the other refusing to condemn Israeli policies that stifle Palestinian freedom aspirations?

A – Orwell said, at the time, that he would not speak for any organization that was opposed to tyranny that did not demand British withdrawal from India and Burma. He also noted that the liberation of Europe did not include the liberation of Spain from the fascists or Portugal. He also noted that it had included the enslavement of Poland.

In the case of the Palestinians, it is generally true that United States political culture doesn’t care about the Palestinians. We are taught to think of them as an inconvenient people who are in the way of Israel and a regional settlement. They are people about whom something should be done or, more condescendingly, for whom something should be provided.

I've spent three decades writing about the Palestinians and publishing a book with Edward Said [leading Palestinian intellectual and critic of Israel] about it. All political factions in this country have been lousy on this issue, but none lousier than the Democratic party. The Democrat party truly is what some people crudely say: a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Israeli lobby. It is one thing it has never deviated on: that and abortion. The only two things the Democrats have never flip flopped about.

The neocons are honorably divided on Israel. Take Paul Wolfowitz, for example. He is very critical of settlements and the whole idea of Greater Israel. Whereas Richard Perle (a prominent neoconservative thinker) doesn’t regard the areas known as Judea and Samaria (the West bank) as occupied territory. He regards them as part of a future Israeli state. I'm looking forward to the neoconservative split on this getting wider.

Q - Some have said that only columnists and public intellectuals can afford principles, whereas politicians sometimes must succumb to realism. In your book, Why Orwell Matters, you admired Orwell because you said that he understood that that politics are fleeting but principles endure. In our day, can a politician rule by principle?

A - It depends on what the principle is. If the principle is that all men are equal or created equal, I don’t think its possible to observe that principle in practice. But if the principle is, say, something cruder such as: can we coexist with aggressive internationalist totalitarian ideologies, then I think you not only can but you should act consistently against that. Never mind the principles for one minute, but the lesson of realism is: that if you don’t fight them now you fight them later.

They [Islamist radicals or, as Hitchens calls them, Islamo-fascists] gave us no peace and we shouldn’t give them any. We can't live on the same planet as them and I'm glad because I don’t want to. I don’t want to breathe the same air as these psychopaths and murders and rapists and torturers and child abusers. Its them or me. I'm very happy about this because I know it will be them. It’s a duty and a responsibility to defeat them. But it's also a pleasure. I don’t regard it as a grim task at all.

[don-o]

bfl

[lentulusgracchus]

I never knew that......Gore Vidal's daddy was the bagman?

Interesting.

Guess all that money must have affected his testicles.

But at least we know now where that mysterious shoebox full of $100 bills came from, that suddenly became a cause notorious in the divorce of Sen. Herman Talmadge of Georgia (who'd been on the Watergate Committee as a representative of paragonship, along with Sen. Montoya of New Mexico, widely believed to be the most corrupt member of the Senate at the time -- that was before Sen Hugh Scott, the minority leader, got caught taking money from Gulf Oil two years after Watergate).

My own theory had been that "Humman" got the shoebox from the late Sen. Richard Russell of Georgia, who in turn probably received it from Lyndon Johnson when he was elevated to the Senate. It was Lyndon's "walking-around money" that he doled out to favored senators, part of his political vig, and before that came from the elder Vidal.

At least that carries us one set of hands further back in the food chain. Like the man said, "follow the money."

Someone needs to write a book, How the Corrupt U.S. Senate Worked Under the Corrupt Lyndon Johnson.

[IamConservative]

The left was and still is blinded by their hate for Bush IMO. I have said many times, if Bush declared a war on hemorrhoids, every Democrat would want one.

[mugs99]

I dont like nor hate Bush. I voted for him twice. But I dont know who's worse; Bush haters or Bushbots??

LOL...
I voted for him twice too, and Bushbots get my goat more than Bush haters ever could. I find it amazing how the Bushbots will support any violation of the Constitution as long as it comes from the Bush administration.

I think Hitchens hits the nail on the head when he says: "Many of the neocons have Marxist backgrounds and believe in ideas and principles and have worked with both parties in power".
...

[Smile-n-Win]

Fascinating that Hitchens sees him as a fascist.

One man's communist is another man's fascist. :-P

But frankly, I don't think there was much of an essential difference between commies and fascists. The ideology of both groups was based on collectivism, and the motivation of both was power-lust.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It was definitely NOT the God of Abraham the Nazis worshipped. The upper echelons of the Party and the SS were deep into the Occult which was where their Secret Doctrine came from. They hated Christianity and its God of Love and would have wiped it out if victorious.

No the Jesuits would not have accepted the ideology at all it was strictly in an organizational sense that the SS modelled itself on the Order. And the elite nature of it.

[processing please hold]

bump for later read.

[George W. Bush]

"The Democrat party truly is what some people crudely say: a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Israeli lobby. It is one thing it has never deviated on: that and abortion. The only two things the Democrats have never flip flopped about."

A remarkably straightforward statement.

One of the most interesting things about the last few years has been to see the real hatred so many on the Left have toward Israel and Jews in general. In essence, I think this means that the Dim party will be more resistant to the most radical Left elements. And this means that foreign policy radicals are less likely to influence Dim candidates in upcoming elections. Despite Dean's failed bid, the Left's power to dictate foreign policy positions to the Dims will increasingly fade. There will be no replay here of how, during the Vietnam era, the views of the Left on foreign policy became the voice of the Dim party for decades to come.

[processing please hold]

The left was and still is blinded by their hate for Bush IMO. I have said many times, if Bush declared a war on hemorrhoids, every Democrat would want one.

May I pilfer your post? I would love to use that line when fighting with leftists.

[IamConservative]

May I pilfer your post? I would love to use that line when fighting with leftists.

You may pilfer with reckless abandon. If in the course of use, you would discover why a hemorrhiod is not called an astroid I would appreciate an update. :)

[processing please hold]

I will, and thanks. I stumbled into a vipers nest of leftist in a tiny town in Texas. The glee they express when our soldiers are killed in Iraq makes me want to vomit. There is one particular person who post their deaths at every opportunity.

All they scream 'Bush lied, people died'.

I find myself fighting on 4-5 threads at a time. They hate me with a passion. A few conservatives are there, but the left outweighs the right. I have such a great time there.

[elbucko]

This battle is one that will not end in the lifetimes of our grandkids.

I agree.

but the left is not going to 'collapse' ever. It will have to be killed, it will have to be fought and slaughtered every day and every hour of our lives.

Again, I agree. The insidious left is as much a threat to the health of this free nation as AIDS is to the human body. So far, there is no cure or vaccine for either AIDS or Leftism.

[Liberty Valance]

Hitchens bump
:o)

[elbucko]

There was once a time, before Marxism, when leftists were, at least, honest.

Nostalgically, yes. That was before they became the agents of a foreign government, the Soviet Union, and infiltrated the Democratic party from the New York City political machine after WWI. FDR brought the NYC communists into the federal government and there they found a permanent place in the Democratic Party and Washington DC. However, since the fall of the USSR, the Left can come out of the closet. The electorate would have never trusted Bill Clinton with the country had there still been a Soviet Union in 1992.

For instance, California used to be "progressive" Republican in the 1950's to the 1990's. Now it is radical Democrat left and getting to be "oppressive" with the imposition of their "freedoms". The Left have now completed what the railroads did in the 19th. Century. The Left has spanned the Continent.

[elbucko]

One of the most interesting things about the last few years has been to see the real hatred so many on the Left have toward Israel and Jews in general.

May I be so bold to venture a guess as to why?

I think that the formation of Israel, in 1948 and its survival, was the first big nail in the USSR's coffin. The Russian Revolution was, essentially, a Jewish revolution. Russia became a place where the Eastern European Jews could be safe and in charge. The Devil that they made the deal with for this security was Marxism. With the reformation of historic Israel, the Jews now had another home, their original home, not an ersatz home like the USSR. It was only a matter of time and a president like Reagan that would start the exodus of Jews to leave Russia and return home to Israel. The secular Democrats have turned on Israel because Israel, besides being an ersatz theocracy, is significantly responsible for the demise of the International Lefts, "Most Favored Nation", the USSR.

[SE Mom]

Thanks for posting this...

ping for later read.

[cbkaty]

They [Islamist radicals or, as Hitchens calls them, Islamo-fascists] gave us no peace and we shouldn’t give them any.

We can't live on the same planet as them and I'm glad because I don’t want to. I don’t want to breathe the same air as these psychopaths and murders and rapists and torturers and child abusers. Its them or me.

I'm very happy about this because I know it will be them. It’s a duty and a responsibility to defeat them. But it's also a pleasure.

I don’t regard it as a grim task at all.

I agree...and I wish I had said that.....

[PhilDragoo]

I have his No One Left to Lie To so I know he periodically pushes back the black blot of dogma.

He's still one hundred eighty degrees wrong on Vietnam as two million Cambodians will attest to from the other side.

And his fondness for "Palestinians" ignores their teaching their children to "kill the Zionist wherever you find him"--not endearing to me.

Yet he's bold here and now where it's life or death, and that takes courage. David Horowitz (Radical Son) made a similar break with lemming leftists.

Fine that Hitchens opposes Islamofascists, but dangerous that he consorts with Edward Said. Daniel Pipes depicts Said:

Noted scholar and author Edward Said, whose works include "Covering Islam" and "Orientalism," wrote that Pipes is one of a group of anti-Muslim pundits who seek to "make sure that the '[Islamic] threat' is kept before our eyes, the better to excoriate Islam for terror, despotism and violence, while assuring themselves profitable consultancies, frequent TV appearances and book contracts." (The Nation, 8/12/1996)

The same Edward Said who told a Kuwaiti newspaper some years ago that "the Israeli and U.S. Governments are our enemies" (Al-Qabas, Oct. 7, 1989); he is someone whose judgment we are to respect? And he, the guru of Middle Eastern studies, the president of the Modern Language Association, the celebrity intellectual of Columbia University, and the darling of post-modernists, accuses me of having fashionable politics?

So I don't agree with Hitchens that the U.S. was eevil in Vietnam--in my view we fought evil; nor do I agree with him that we must cater to the "Palestinians" more than to, say, the Manson family.

I do agree with him that Michael Moore and Ernst Röhm will be reunited in a bathhouse in hell.

I do agree with Hitchens' final paragraph which is full of stirring rhetoric (with which I posit Hitchens' collaborator Said will have nothing to do).

Now, on to Tehran and turn Khamenei into a Ceacescu for the New Millenium.

[GeronL]

Thanks. I am going to upgrade my FR homepage with a little 'column' I wrote today on the topic.