| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| An Interview with Christopher Hitchens: Adieu to the Left |
| 2004-10-04 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #11 Lex...well said. This is probably the last election we have to worry about these spoiled post WWII and baby boomer brats ruining the estate their grandparents and great-grandparents worked so hard to bequeath them. You can almost draw a line between those born before approx 1956 and those born after it. While there are plenty of younger dems who are willing to walk off the plank of self-righteous cynicism, they tend to be more qualified in the "misfit" department than are the children who came of age in the 50's 60's and 70's. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-10-04 4:29:44 PM |
| #10 Normally you'd expect younger people without children or mortgages or major investments in a community and a career to be less conservative, but the party and ideological affiliation polls I've seen suggest that FEWER 20-30 year-olds identify themselves as liberal or Democrat than in any other age group. Vietnam was the defining experience for the baby boomer generation. 9/11 is for today's young people. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-04 4:15:02 PM |
| #9 Yes, there are plenty of young left-idiotarians but far fewer, in % terms, than in 1970. Back then (and up til maybe 1980), the vast majority of students at elite universities would have agreed with the proposition that "the US military should not intervene abroad to protect US interests." Today the figure would be maybe 50%. That's a huge shift. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-04 4:11:57 PM |
| #8 If it were generational, no one would be paying attention to 20-30 year old voters. Don't believe me? Pan the audience of recent campaign events-many are in this bracket. They weren't even born in the 60-70s, but they spew the same self-loathing that marks the Kerry doctrine. No, this goes beyond era. |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-10-04 4:09:09 PM |
| #7 I've suspected that, too, that it's generational; but I wonder if it doesn't go back even farther than that: was Hollywood patriotic during WWII because they were pro-American back then (contrasted with anti-American, which they are now), or because in WWII we were fighting on the same side as the Soviets? I've often wondered that. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-10-04 3:53:02 PM |
| #6 It's generational more than anything else: the last gasp of the Vietnam protest generation who are determined to view their government as corrupt and dishonest and view any exercise of US military might with alarm. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-04 3:43:16 PM |
| #5 Dave D-You got it. Halloweenie-Yeah, it is perplexing. They want to appear fair above anything else. In their pursuit, they have gone overboard, automatically trusting anyone, anything, any report negative towards America, and automatically distrusting anyone, anything, any report that's positive about America. |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-10-04 3:32:51 PM |
| #4 "The public was 85% in favor of the war when we were riding high last April, and began to waver only when it appeared that the fascists were starting to take back the initiative." I think a far bigger cause of that wavering was the conscious decision, by the leadership of the Democratic Party, to actively undermine public confidence in the war as a way of furthering their own political gain. I don't think the real facts on the ground have had much to do with it, although the doom-and-gloom portrayals of Iraq by the MSM certainly have. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-10-04 3:13:48 PM |
| #3 Hitch is still a "leftist" culturally and socially, maybe even fiscally. Like Pym Fontaine, he understands that what is really at stake beside civil freedom and democracy is liberal thought and ideals - gay rights, academic freedom, women's rights, etc. What is the most puzzling aspect of this whole anti-war protest crowd (your usual assortment of LLL) is why they seem to be pushing the other way (ie support for the Islamofascists). It is collective intellectually sponsored suicide. |
| Posted by: Halloweenie 2004-10-04 2:57:28 PM |
| #2 Atheist and ex-leftist Hitchens is dead right. Interesting that it's the former hardcore leftists who best understand the "strong horse/weak horse", correlation-of-forces dynamic of history. Bush's people could use a bit more of this brand of hardcore realist/materialist thinking. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-04 12:30:33 PM |
| #1 Q: can you [Hitchens] see a time when this kind of jihadist fever will be as marginalised as, say, Nazism is now, confined to a few reactionary eccentrics? A: "Not without what that took - which is an absolutely convincing defeat and discrediting. Something unarguable. I wouldn't exclude any measure either. There's nothing I wouldn't do to stop this form of fascism." Spot on. Strong horse, not a weak horse. People respect victory, not good intentions or fine strategic approaches. The public was 85% in favor of the war when we were riding high last April, and began to waver only when it appeared that the fascists were starting to take back the initiative. So, bring it on, ratchet it up. Smash the fascists where they are. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-04 12:28:10 PM |