Tag: Christopher Hitchens

Is Christopher Hitchens left-wing, or right-wing?

It is my personal opinion, that you cannot pigeonhole him, and that he adheres to no particular ideology.

BUT. I've heard he has made friends with Tom DeLay. He has written on the blurb of Grover Norquist's new book about libertarianism/capitalism. I would like to know what this comment is.

Of course, associating yourself with right-wingers, doesn't automatically make you one. Anyone who suggests so is resorting to 'ad hominem'. But does he have a newfound belief in capitalist economics? Or does he believe in a throwback to his democratic socialism in terms of economics?

Is his military policy liberal interventionism, or neo-conservatism? Does his atheism reflect the more diluted agnosticism of the Left, or perhaps a materialist atheism of the Ayn Rand types?

He supports gay marriage, the ICC, Kyoto treaty, Palestine, drugs legalisation.

He had a pseudo-pacifism before 1991, but not is supportive of military intervention.

He is an ardent critic of Israel, but an equally ardent critic of Islamic extremists.


He is a republican, not in that he hates poor people and lesbians, but is an anti-monarchist. But, on that front, he hasn't really ever supported Democrats. Or has he.


Some say in 2004 he was supporting Kerry, others say Bush. This year, he may have voted for Edwards or Giuliani. Who did he support in years before that?


Is he left-wing, right-wing. Let's not get distracted by the policies he may or may not support, but I'm trying to come to a conclusion of whether he adheres more to any particular side of the political spectrum. I know I am in danger of resorting to platitudes of dichotomies here, and his contrarian nature is evident proof, of being able to come from a different ideology in supporting an argument traditionally supported by the opposite ideology.


Different opinions of war

Is it hypocritical to support one military action and not the other? I'm actually not sure. I'm not old enough to remember UK going into Kosovo, but I think I would have been for military intervention in the Balkans. There are some who are always against these interventions, people like Tony Benn etc. There are also conservitives like Malcolm Rifkind who was against intervention in Kosovo and Iraq. There are others who shared the views of Robin Cook, for the first war, not the other. Another Hitchenesque school of thought is always confusing, defining missiling Sudan as a war crime, but, defending the intervention of Iraq. I was against intervention in Iraq from the start. Does it make me hypocritical? I think on the basis that Milosovic was threatning other countries and ethnic blocs. But I didn't believe Iraq was threatning other countries, the failiure to get a second UN resoloution, the faulty intelligance etc. were the reasons for my opposition. Hussein was obviously lots of things which I won't choose to say on a Sunday morning. If the 'Blairesque' school of thought is to be believed, then we would also have to intervene in Belarus, Burma, Zimbabwe, China, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran and many other countries. And I'm sure, that many bloggers would like to see intervention in some of these countries, but not others.