Talk:Christopher Hitchens

Is there any reason why Hitchens is described as "conservative"? previous unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces

Variously the article has described him as "conservative", "neo-conservative" and not at all. Hitchens is very much a paradox, and I for one wouldn't like to try to pin down exactly which part of the political spectrum he fits into. Several areas at once, probably. I'm not convinced that conservative or neo-conservative are accurate. Perhaps we should discuss here exactly who thinks he's what and why File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 09:09, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Egads! Perhaps it's even possible that one cannot be neatly placed into a category of conservative or liberal? Whatever shall we do!? QNA 15:32, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Thankyou for your constructive and intelligent contribution to the discussion.File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:38, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

You want constructive and intelligent, you're in the wrong place. If you don't see the futility in trying to categorize someone into a neat little box, then I'm not sure what more I can say... Hitchens is a lovely example of a real person who can not be categorized so easily, and who will drive most of the people on this site insane. You'll gladly use his quotes that are critical of Michael Moore, yet you'll marginalize and condemn him because he is an outspoken atheist... he openly contradicts the fiction that this site is trying to perpetuate which is that conservative and young earth creationist (or at the very least fundamentalist Christian) are synonymous. That a little more constructive for you, skippy? QNA 15:46, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

LoL, you should get out more :) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:56, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Hitchens is certainly not a conservative--or if he is, not one of very old vintage. He is a supporter of the Iraq war, but that does not a conservative make. He's also a staunch critic of Reagan, Kissinger, etc., etc. I would put him as an iconoclast, an image he's worked very hard to maintain. As for the article, I would simply delete "conservative" and leave it at that.Reaganetics 16:43, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

My 2 cents - I agree with the above. He doesn't fit comfortably into liberal, conservative, or neocon, particularly as those labels have been defined here on CP. Labels ought to be deleted from the article; describe the stances he has taken and let readers decide what they think of him, free of preconceptions. Aziraphale 00:39, 25 June 2007 (EDT) <- needs change for a nickel...

• Hitchens' self-describes as "Social-Conservative". --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 00:45, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Maybe we could say "Hitchens is a self-described conservative". DanH 00:49, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

• ROFL! He's a bit of an ass. Self-described human might be more accurate. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Hitchens is an interesting character; like many so-called "leftists" who one day grow up, Hitchens has become something of a neo-con, if "neocon" is defined a liberal mugged by reality. Hitchens mugging by reality apparantly even bagan prior to 9/11, but was even more solidified by that historic event. Hitchens does have one problem though, he went way to far out on a limb with Trial of Henry Kissinger, the matter was even pursued litigously, so while he'd like to say publicly, "I was an idiot, as is typical of youngsters and loud mouth liberals. I didn't really beleive any of that garbage, in fact, I didn't really even understand the issues. I just thought my job as a young loud mouth liberal was to slander people with outrageous accusations, and didn't think anybody would really be hurt by it. But now I'm grown up and see the world differently."

Unfortunately Hitchens can't say this, cause that would be an admission what he wrote and what he said decades ago was false and malicious, hence he'd get his butt sued bigtime, and loose in court bigtime. Soooo, he's married to the sins of his youth and has to carry all that contradictary baggage, and try to make half-hearted attempts to say now that he still really meant it and beleives it.

This could be a lesson for students wishing to make a career in journalism. RobS 00:50, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

• This is a lesson for all young people in general. We are all married to our pasts. One cannot wipe your past statements from reality like a hard drive. ;-) --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 00:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

It's patent nonsense to describe Hitchens as a conservative. In this article he implies that he is a member of the ACLU ("In ACLU circles, we often refer to ourselves as "First Amendment Absolutists"). In another, he debates the Iraq War with other Slate contributors, referring to themselves as "Liberal hawks". And, of course, Slate is a liberal publication--Afi 16:43, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

• Ah, so his saracasm is lost on you too... --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 18:27, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Maybe there was in the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article, but I didn't detect any. There definitely wasn't in the "Liberal hawks" article because, well, how can you insert sarcasm in the title of the article you co-wrote? With seven other people? That's totally absurd and you know it. --Afi 10:12, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

By the way, I've got the full quote here to demonstrate the total lack of sarcasm in the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article.

"Let me give another example of linguistic slippage. In ACLU circles, we often refer to ourselves as "First Amendment absolutists." By this we mean, ironically enough, that we prefer to interpret the words of the Founders, if you insist, literally. The literal meaning in this case seems (to us) to be that Congress cannot inhibit any speech or establish any state religion. This means that we defend all expressions of opinion including those that revolt us, and that we say that nobody can be forced to practice, or forced to foreswear, any faith. I suppose I would say that this is an inflexible principle, or even a dogma, with me. But who dares to say that's the same as the belief that criticism of religion should be censored or the belief that faith should be imposed?"

He was using his membership as an example. If he was being super-subtle and injecting sarcasm into his article, he'd be purposefully sabotaging his point. Why? --Afi 10:22, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

If you think he's a conservative because he supports the War on Terror, you're being absolutely ridiculous. I know you enjoy the credibility of having the fifth most famous public intellectual in your camp, so to speak, but does that mean the other left-wing supporters of the War on Terror are conservative? What about Nick Cohen?--Afi 14:12, 18 July 2007 (EDT)