Posted on 10/04/2004 2:09:25 AM PDT by kattracks
On the day Hitch forgives Henry Kissinger for helping to save the west from communism, we can welcome him to the right.
Sigh
This was quite anti-climactic for me. I'm still waiting for someone to define neoconservatism for me. Although this article implies that it's a term that's been in vogue for decades, I've really only heard it used for the past couple of years.
We may wait forever for that!
Meanwhile Hitch can take credit for influencing my point of view on the Iraq war midway through our national political debate on the issue. I hadn't made up my mind when he was debating someone at the Commonwealth about it. He made excellent points about the plight of the use of WMD on the Kurds, and pointed out how precarious the situation had been for them and the Shi'ites. I accepted his argument that the guy was a nut, and decided Saddam had to go. I haven't wavered since.
He's exceptionally talented.
I know someone who could debate him on Kissinger. It always comes down to principles, and yes, many of them were abandoned during the Cold War. We should learn from that. Pressure from Democrats and pacifists often dictate those mistakes. Also, our enemies are ruthless and sometimes our hands are forced in that respect. The fight begins at home and ends at home for moral superiority, but war is always hell. Hitch's attacks on Kissinger are basically incidents of fratricide and are worse than friendly fire. But you're right, the guy is handy to have on our side now.
Hitchins can still uncork some pretty leftist sentiments. That doesn't place him in my, 'A good guy to call when you need to sway public opinion' column.
When he's right, it's nice to read. When he's not, it sucks.
Since you can't honestly tell which side he'll come down on, you have to dismiss the guy for the most part.
If you can keep the debate narrowly focused, he may be good on some issues. The problem with guys like this though, is that they will kill you on the periferal issues. People too often reason that if he is solid on "X", then he must be right on "XX" too. With Hitchins, that's a flawed assumption.
Funny, but I sometimes have similar musings about the conservative right. Who in the U.S. Senate still stands for them? All I see is a constant parade of folks like you saw at the GOP convention - big government "conservatives" that don't want to shrink our burdensome federalocracy or even defederalize it. They just want to keep liberal hands away from it by acting neoliberal themselves.
I can sympathize with Hitch. Many times I feel my party has left me. I just don't reach the same conclusions as he has because our goals are different.
I have always had respect for Hitchens. He's one of the few on the (used-to-be?) left that actually thinks for himself, instead of mouthing talking points from HQ.
He sounds like someone with whom one could have a reasonable debate, IOW -- not someone on the left that always brings to mind Ayn Rand's "drooling beast."
And anyone that takes long road trips with P.J. O'Rourke can't be all that bad. ;o)
Seems this is "an interview with Hitchens" ... using quotes from the author, Johann Hari.
bump..
BUMP
Git back on that plantation BOY!!
Tariq "Comical" Ali
Haven't you heard? It's a battle of words the poster bearer cried.
Are there any neocons who are not Jewish conservatives?
Wow! And it's a floor wax and dessert topping, too !!
bump
Tim Russert had a great show a few weeks back with Hitchins and Andrew Sullivan. As much as it pained both of them, they ultimately had to agree with Bush on the Iraq issue.
They realize it's a battle for civilization itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.