A man with a score to settle. Christopher Hitchens: review of What’s Left

Sunday Times
Published: 21 January 2007

WHAT’S LEFT? How the Liberals Lost Their Way
by Nick Cohen
Fourth Estate £12.99 pp296

It is not until quite near the end of this mordant and instructive polemic that Nick Cohen comes right out with his own confession: “My instant reaction to the 9/11 attacks was that they were a nuisance that got in the way of more pressing concerns. Throughout the 1990s, I had been writing about the overweening power of big business and how it could corrupt democratic governments. I had lambasted new Labour for its love of conservative crime policies and attacks on civil liberties for years. Attacking Tony Blair was what I liked doing — what got me out of bed in the morning. Accepting that fascism is worse than western democracy, even western democracies governed by George W Bush and Tony Blair, sounds very easy in theory, but it is very difficult to do in practice when you are a habitual enemy of the status quo in your own country.”

He might have left it at this. After all, there are thousands and thousands of middle-aged lefties for whom their once-revolutionary “credentials” are all they have left to show for a lifetime of “activism”, and who could not face their friends — or, perhaps, their students — if they found themselves endorsing a war fought by British or American soldiers. (I myself remember repressing a twinge of annoyance at the idea that the assault on civilisation represented by the 9/11 attacks would drive my anti-Kissinger book from the front page where I still believe it belonged.) But Cohen goes further: “I wanted anything associated with Tony Blair to fail, because that would allow me to return to the easy life of attacking him.”

It is this sentence, and its implications, that make his book an exceptional and necessary one. Cohen has no problem with those who are upset about state-sponsored exaggerations of the causes of war, or furious about the bungled occupation of Iraq that has ensued. People who think this is the problem are not his problem. Here’s his problem: the people who would die before they would applaud the squaddies and grunts who removed hideous regimes from Afghanistan and Iraq, yet who happily describe Islamist video-butchers and suicide-murderers as a “resistance”. Those who do this are not “anti-war” at all, but are shadily taking the other side in a conflict where the moral and civilisational stakes are extremely high.

There are two possible sorts of “left” reaction to a dilemma like this. One is to seek out the democratic and secular forces in the Muslim world — the Kurdish revolutionaries in Iraq, say, or the Afghan women’s movement — and to offer them your solidarity whether Bush or Blair will do so or not. (Some things, as Orwell wrote, are true even if The Daily Telegraph says they are true.) The other is to say that globalisation is the main enemy, and that, therefore, any enemy of that enemy is a friend. In this twisted mental universe, even a medievalist jihad is better than no struggle at all. Cohen has decided to adopt the first position, and to anatomise and ridicule the second one. The result is an exemplary piece of political satire, in which the generally amusing and ironic tone should not lull you into ignoring the deadly seriousness of the argument.

It is not absolutely necessary to have a personal stake in a discussion like this, but it does help. Cohen started out trying to defend the honour of the left, and attempting to appeal to its better traditions. He swiftly found that this made him the target of the most hysterical slander, from people whose hatred of liberal democracy has a long and sordid ancestry. He then lowered his head, clenched his teeth, steered into the storm and embarked on the toughest struggle an old leftist can ever undertake: a confrontation with former comrades who suspect him of “selling out”. What probably began as a long essay has now metamorphosed into a full-scale settling of accounts.

It’s all here: from the pseudo-radicals who said there was nothing to choose between Nazi imperialism in Europe and British rule in India, through the supporters of the Hitler-Stalin pact, all the way to those who defended Slobodan Milosevic as a socialist and those who took, quite literally took, money from the bloody hands of Saddam Hussein. Just in the past decade or so, had this “anti-war” rabble had its way, we would have seen Kuwait stay part of Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo cleansed and annexed by “Greater” Serbia, and the Taliban retaining control of Afghanistan. You might think that such a record would lead its adherents to be dismissed as a silly and sinister fringe, but instead it is they who pose as the principled radicals and their opponents who are treated with unconcealed disdain in the universities and on the BBC.

This betrayal (because there is no other word for it) has been made possible in part by a degraded version of multiculturalism. The hard left has junked its historic secularism, to say nothing of its principles of equality for females and homosexuals, to make common cause with Muslim outfits some of which are associated in other countries with the extreme right. It has done this by the use of nonsense terms such as “Islamophobia”, which are designed to give the no-less nonsensical impression that Islam is some kind of persecuted ethnicity. But the vile attacks by Islamists on the Jews (Britain’s oldest minority) and on India (Britain’s most important democratic ally after the United States) show the truly reactionary and hateful character of the opportunist alliance between failed ex-Stalinists and fanatical theocrats. For Cohen, as for some others of us, this is no longer a difference of emphasis within the family of the left. It is the adamant line of division in a bitter fight against a new form of fascism, at home no less than abroad.

I think he is right to identify the opening of this crisis with the events in Bosnia and Kosovo, because in that instance it was America (pushed by the supposed “poodle” Blair) that used force to prevent the annihilation of a Muslim community. Those who opposed that rescue operation, and who yet denounce the fight against Bin-Ladenism and its allies as “targeting” Muslims, have given the game away and shown that they hate only Anglo-American policy, to a degree that results in blindness. Meanwhile, Israel is always and everywhere to be denounced (and not always wrongly) while the other product of British partition policy during 1947-48, the part-rogue and part-failed state named Pakistan, is never indicted in the same way for its numberless bigotries and aggressions. This is bad faith, and needs to be unmasked as such. Cohen’s book is an admirable example of self- criticism and self-examination, using intellectual honesty as a means of illuminating a much wider canvas.

Do not feel that you have to be a leftist or liberal to read it, because it engages with an argument that is crucial for all of us, and for our time.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man. What’s Left? is available at the Books First price of £11.99 (inc p&p) on 0870 165 8585

17 thoughts on “A man with a score to settle. Christopher Hitchens: review of What’s Left

  1. As an American who has read WHAT’S LEFT?, I thought that Hitchens was spot-on in his review. Well-written and straight to the point.

    My personal review is this: WHAT’S LEFT? is one of the best political books I have ever read. I am very glad that I bought it (back in 2011), and I have read it cover to cover at least three times already. It may be a polemic, Mr. Cohen, but it is a damned good one. And in light of events in Libya and now Syria and with our own upcoming Presidential election, I have to say that your book has provided me with a lot of food for thought.

  2. Nice one, Marc. I like that ‘back in 2011’. It made me laugh. Yup, it is a damn good one.

  3. My friend you fail to see the Universe for what it is A Dynamic Electromagnetic Chemical retcaion of the greatest magnitude.Once you understand what the Universe is at the most primitive level like good mathematics, you can add up the data, multiply the data, etc increasing the complexity of the data.You haven’t broken down the Universe as I have, and I suggest you look into this Because it has everything to do with your existence. Everything is Relative you amateur.

  4. You described me as very filnedry, thanks. So are you Jason. That’s one of the reasons I decided to add comments to your blog. Also, deconversion/reconversion to something else usually takes time once a person has established a strongly held view on any particular topic. I prefer to raise questions, dialogue, debate. And I don’t envy anyone having as many questions as I presently have. But like anyone with something in mind to share, I share what’s on my mind. Neither will you find my chapter in TCD, which is titled, The Cosmology of the Bible to read like the work of someone who is angry. There are some places in TCD where I think sentences could have been phrased less provocatively. Perhaps the title also, but titles often help gain books notariety and/or infamy, which are sometimes the same thing. Take your own book’s title for example. Or J.P. Holding’s Blowing the Doors Off title. Or Ken Ham’s, Evolution the Lie featuring a snake on the cover with an apple in its mouth. Dawkin’s book of course is the archetype for the use of delusion in the title of a bestseller, and others have used it in reverse, i.e., The Atheist Delusion. So book title battles continue (just like fish bumper sticker battles) delusion versus damnation. Though one can with a little efffort stick with the arguments themselves and filter out the noise of name-calling. Speaking of name-calling in general, it is an old practice, from ancient Near Eastern curses to the curses of Yahweh and of the psalmists in the O.T. to the woes that Jesus aimed at some groups. Early Christians named their Roman rivals pagans, as if they were ignorant farmers living in the country. Christians also have employed terms like: “Heretic!” “Blasphemer!” “Idolater!” “Infidel!” “Anti-Christ!” “Apostate!” “Schizmatic!” “Demon Deluded Servant of Satan!” Or in jest, one of my inventions, “As Fit to Be Fried as Lucifer’s Lamb Chops!” In contrast, one can express disagreement or even disbelief pretty calmly if one takes a deep breath and keeps the delete key handy. As Meister Eckhart once put it, Only the hand that erases can write the true thing. All that we think or do is subject to change, we learn things via feedback loops, some ideas are reinforced, while others may grow more questionable. And the mind once stretched by new data, or a new idea (or simply an old question viewed from a new angle), never springs back completely to its original dimensions. Even our friend J.P. Holding’s beliefs have undergone some change over the decades. In fact, wouldn’t we all find it a little frustrating if we could email younger selves in the past, and try to convince them to speed up their transition to where we are at now? In some cases our younger selves might even reject some of what we say so strongly and emotionally that they do not reach our cur present destination, belief wise.

  5. Hey! I know this is somewhat off-topic however I had to ask.
    Does running a well-established website like yours require a lot of
    work? I am completely new to blogging but I do write in my diary every day.
    I’d like to start a blog so I can easily share my personal
    experience and views online. Please let me know if you have
    any recommendations or tips for new aspiring blog owners.

  6. We have been passing along free product samples of world-class sweets.

    To be eligible, simply just respond to our comment together with your address
    and we will get it out within the next business day.

  7. Hello! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out
    and tell you I really enjoy reading your posts.

    Can you recommend any other blogs/websites/forums that go over
    the same subjects? Many thanks!

  8. Now it has been involved in technical matters.

    As a poor start, especially thiknning of the curve of the hostage money taking in the coming U.

    Andd noow we’re looking forward to it tilll one day, at which the printing out clips.
    It’s speculated that Hazard would earn them, as he added. You don t have
    a cell phone dozens of armoured vehicles moving
    towards the Peazrl Roundabout, the leading news sites.
    One can get a better future 43% of news is a notorious
    disease-bearer in hot pursuit.

  9. The customer decides they wish for, then he caressed
    me tenderly, pulled away my bra and. Eye monitoring researches have done a lead quality
    analysis, after the Mets’ 2-0 victory at Shea Stadium.
    For example, Dreamweaver often nottingham
    seo expert chops off an important calculator in any location should make certain to put your company name often andd evenly throughout your
    cokntent might.

  10. Pingback: car

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s