October 3, 2005
TRADING PLACES:
The Purest Neocon: Christopher Hitchens, an unreconstructed Bolshevik, finds his natural home on the pro-war Right. (Tom Piatak, 10/10/05, American Conservative)
Given [Christopher] Hitchens’s current role as a neocon fellow traveler, it is instructive (not to mention fun) to recall with whom he used to travel. When the United States was locked in a mortal struggle with Soviet Communism, Hitchens was at best AWOL, at worst pulling for the other team. From his safe post at The New Statesman and later The Nation, Hitchens opposed every effort to defeat Communism—including the defense of South Vietnam, the deployment of cruise missiles and Pershing missiles in Europe, the invasion of Grenada, American support for the Contras, and Reagan’s military buildup. Hitchens can be sensitive about his past—he is quite angry with his brother Peter for letting us know that Christopher used to joke about not caring “if the Red Army waters its horses in Hendon”—but there can be no doubt where Hitchens stood during the Cold War. He was faithfully following Leon Trotsky, who wrote in 1939, “the defense of the USSR coincides for us with the preparation of world revolution.”Rather than worrying about Soviet Communism, Hitchens spent his Nation years fighting against what he called “a regime of crime and corruption in the White House. ... necessitated by a war on revolution overseas and on democracy at home.” This description—typical of Hitchens’s invective against Ronald Reagan—was contained in a fawning letter to “Comrade Ramirez,” a functionary of the Sandinista dictatorship in Nicaragua. Hitchens unbosomed that, far from hoping for an American victory in the Cold War, he was hoping for a “socialist renewal in the Soviet Union.” Hitchens also told his friend in Managua, “It is quite likely that historians will record this unhappy period not as an age of Reagan at all, but as a footnote to the age of Mikhail Gorbachev.”
Elsewhere, Hitchens turned out lines worthy of Soviet Life, such as this observation from a pre-invasion visit to the budding Communist dictatorship in Grenada: “The general enthusiasm, the internationalism and the determination of the Grenadan people is an inspiring thing to witness.”
Then there was the column Hitchens wrote in 1982, blasting anti-Communists for talking about “appeasement” and “Finlandization.” In the midst of Hitchens’s long-winded explanation of why these were “bogus ideological words” and their use was “an insult—and not only to Finland,” comes a plangent reminder of the place Hitchens was happy to call home during the Cold War: an advertisement enticing readers to “spend Your Vacation with The Nation and Cruise Up the Volga.” The CPUSA was not listed as a sponsor, but that would probably have been redundant for a trip also sponsored by the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.
Of course, when the war was against Communism instead of Islamicism, Pat Buchanan sounded like Mr. Hitchens does now. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 3, 2005 2:46 PM
Yeah - I don't really get it - are the guys at American Conservative criticizing Hitchens for his past beliefs in relation to American foreign policy? Because those beliefs are identical to their own beliefs today (the protectionists and know-nothings who write for American Conservative). Its just ironic to hear Piatak criticize Hitchens for saying the US should butt out of foreign affairs.
Posted by: Shelton at October 3, 2005 3:06 PMDidn't one of Buchanan's heroes (Whitaker Chambers) have a similar Road-to-Damascus moment? And I'm not refering here to Chambers' conversion to Roman Catholicism.
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at October 3, 2005 4:18 PMFred:
He had all three of the Hitchens-conversion:
Communist to conservative to Straight/Married/with kids to Catholic
Posted by: oj at October 3, 2005 4:35 PMThe author seems alarmed that Hitch is not a realist.
Posted by: ghostcat at October 3, 2005 4:51 PMBuchanan opposes both Hitchens' positions. To Buchananites, Hitchens demonstrated that he was on the wrong side during the Cold War, and thus he is not necessarily right now about Iraq than he was back then.
Hitchens did not support back then what the Buchananites believe now. Hitchens was (is?) a Trotskyite. Buchananites are paleo-cons. The two are not identical.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at October 3, 2005 5:35 PMthe intracacies of their philosophies may be different but they are both now calling for the same actions.
Posted by: Shelton at October 3, 2005 7:59 PM