From a slug into a butterfly

How Christopher Hitchens can save the left.

A review of How Hitchens Can Save the Left: Rediscovering Fearless Liberalism in an Age of Counter-Enlightenment by Matt Johnson (2023)

I make no attempts to hide my admiration for Christopher Hitchens—his convictions regarding freedom of expression and anti-totalitarianism have had a considerable impact on my perception of a range of issues and are the foundation for my understanding of liberalism and how I let it define my own ideas and attitudes.

I can trace the origins of my interest in politics all the way back to when I was gifted my first laptop in 2010—the twilight of Christopher’s life and public speaking career—which granted me the freedom to browse the internet, away from the curious eyes of my family, who were an ever-present force in the living room where we stationed our main computer.

My first exposure to Hitchens came through browsing YouTube—a domain where his content had, and continues to retain, an almost cult-like following, and where infamous “Hitchslap” compilations draw millions of views. As an aside, his documentary on the hysteria that followed the death of Princess Diana makes for a great watch when reflecting on the events that followed the death of Queen Elizabeth II last September.

Hitchens, along with Richard Dawkins and others of the New Atheist movement, captivated me almost instantaneously; their sharp wit and commitment to reason and logic in the face of absurdity made quite the impression on me as a young child who was raised in a godless home and understood religion to be an alien phenomenon, yet without the skills to explain quite why I felt that way.

At this stage, I wasn’t yet a “fan” of Hitchens. I took great joy in viewing his comebacks and scathing one-liners against religious leaders and political commentators but remained mostly ignorant of the details that underlined the subjects of the debates in which he participated. I did notice one impact, however, as my attitude shifted from indifference to a passionate hate for religion and those who try to spread it by force.

I still feel this way, empathising with Hitchens’ characterisation of theocracy as simply another breed of totalitarianism, and my horror at the many despicable crimes that continue to be committed in the name of religion. Yet I recognise now, years later, that religion can serve as a moral anchor to some, and importantly creates a sense of community in a society that is becoming rapidly atomised as a result of the growing influence of the internet—and social media—over our personal lives.

But this doesn’t make me any less of an atheist today.

I can credit Hitchens with ultimately exposing me to the ideas that would one day push me into studying international relations at university: radicalism, extremism, and where they boil over into terrorism and conflict.

Every time we witness another case of violent religious extremism—most recently in the terror attacks committed by Hamas on October 7th—I am reminded of these facts and the journey I have been on for the best part of 15 years now. 

On the twelfth anniversary of Christopher’s death (December 15th 2011), I will explore a book, authored by Matt Johnson, which chronicles his fearless style of liberalism and how it reflects upon the current state of our political discourse.

A man of the left

From the very start of the book, Johnson highlights Christopher’s commitment to left-wing ideas. Once defining himself as a socialist, and proudly so, Hitchens came from the old tradition of left-wing activism—involving advocacy for labour unions and a strong welfare state—and was moulded by his confidence in the ideas of equality and democracy.

His commitment to these ideas, particularly on liberal internationalism and the role of the United States on the global stage, occasionally made him a pariah to his fellow left-wingers—most infamously in his support for the invasion of Iraq in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. This stance, and the disaster that the war in Iraq turned out to be, spurred the belief amongst his critics that Hitchens had abandoned his left-wing principles, and was thus branded a neoconservative hawk.

This notion, amongst others, is what Johnson attempts to disprove throughout the book by arguing that during the entirety of his life, Hitchens remained committed to those core ideas from the left, which ultimately shaped his view on Iraq—the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein had to be deposed and the Iraqi people (and notably the Kurds) were entitled to their democratic rights and freedoms.

It is obvious to everyone that this liberal fantasy never came to pass, which makes going back and watching Hitchens’ presentation of the case for war a sobering, and sometimes cringeworthy, affair.

For a large chunk of the book, Johnson attempts to demonstrate how Hitchens reached these conclusions, based on the evidence of his long-standing advocacy for US armed intervention to support Bosnians and the Kurds, shaped by his anti-totalitarianism and belief in universalism. Johnson also suggests that Hitchens’ reaction to the 1989 fatwa against Salman Rushdie—which he considered to be “an unprecedented challenge, not just to what we might call First Amendment values, but to civilisation”—proved to be a catalyst in his backing of the Bush administration’s assault on fundamentalism.

Rushdie himself considers the Iraq affair to be a “mistake” on Christopher’s part, yet Hitchens never backed down from his stance and considered his opposition to Saddam’s regime to belong to the same anti-totalitarian principle that guided his attacks against religion—which Rushdie felt was the “real Christopher”. Johnson affirms that despite the perspective from the outside, Hitchens’ seemingly hypocritical positions were, in fact, entirely consistent with his fiery brand of liberalism, and there was no evidence that he had instead slid to the right.

Where the left went wrong

When Hitchens came to blows with George Galloway in a 2005 debate on the war in Iraq, the former Labour MP was quick to bring his opponent’s controversial position on the matter to the audience’s attention:

"What you have witnessed since then is something unique in natural history: the first ever metamorphosis from a butterfly back into a slug. I mention 'slug' purposefully, because the one thing a slug does leave behind it is a trail of slime."

Hitchens’ position on Iraq is undoubtedly a particularly dark stain on his legacy, and one that is impossible to remove. Johnson tries his best to explain the logic of his decision, and whilst the arguments are consistent, it does not make the answer correct.

Yet I would also argue that Galloway’s style of left-wing activism—with his prominent history of cosying up to various dictators and denying crimes against humanity—leaves its own despicable trail of slime; one which drastically impacts our political discourse even today with the infamous Stop the War coalition and the recent spate of pro-Palestine protests that provide a platform for antisemitism, and where calls for religious conflict are spewed on the streets of London.

In the same 2005 debate, held in New York, Galloway implied that the 9/11 attacks had been brought upon the United States by itself, and thus deserved its retribution. His recent comments in regard to Israel show that his attitude hasn’t changed much in nearly twenty years.

This is the side of the left that I detest, and I reckon that Johnson, and subsequently Hitchens, would fall into the same camp. Hitchens that day referred to Galloway as a “really unscrupulous person” and that when he turned to face him “it was like looking straight into the piggy eyes of fascism”.

Knowing Galloway’s activities since, including pandering to Islamist extremists in the north of England, its hard to disagree with Christopher’s assessment—if he were alive today I believe he wouldn’t hesitate to once again make use of the term Islamofascism.

“Sinister bullshit”

It worries me to witness the extent to which those who would identify with the left have an utter disregard for freedom of speech, and choose to immerse themselves totally within the paradigm of identity politics—what Hitchens referred to as “sinister bullshit”.

I think Johnson summarises things best in this paragraph:

Much of the left has been captured by a strange mix of sectarian and authoritarian impulses: a myopic emphasis on identitarianism and group rights over the individual; an orientation towards subjectivity and tribalism over objectivity and universalism; and demands for political orthodoxy enforced by repressive tactics like the suppression of speech.

He goes on to identify the fact that this approach only serves to legitimise populists on the far-right in the West—that are inherently authoritarian, xenophobic and misogynistic—by giving them the opportunity to blame the left as the “true” threat to democracy. The fact is that both movements are just as illiberal as each other, and I therefore despise them both equally.

Hitchens’ belief in freedom of speech was fundamental to his constitution, and is made reference to constantly throughout the book. Crucially, he believed that a culture of free speech, where fear of negative public opinion or ostracisation did not dissuade individuals from expressing their honest opinions, was of utmost importance.

Johnson cites Orwell on this subject:

 “The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban.”

It doesn’t take a genius to see that today, especially on university campuses, there is something deeply wrong in regards to our cultural approach to freedom of expression. Calls from student bodies to silence critics and “cancel” individuals for “harmful” statements make a mockery of universities’ stated mission as institutions where ideas can be discussed and the truth can be investigated.

Johnson also highlights how the Rushdie fatwa generated such a strong reaction in Hitchens, with the Western world failing to rally to defend this fundamental freedom. He argues that the fatwa “exposed many of the deepest problems with what [Hitchens] saw as complacent Western liberalism: its susceptibility to theocratic bullying under the cloak of multiculturalism”.

Hitchens believed that his principles could not be abandoned in the face of violence and intimidation, and “when the pressure to make an exception” is in fact when sticking to them matters most. Johnson and Hitchens emphasise how free speech is fundamental to liberal democracy, and that special protections should not be afforded to any religion or group identities. I find myself agreeing with every word in this section of the book.

Building the cocoon

Whilst certainly a critic of the darker side of identity politics, Hitchens did not take the more radical position that ideas surrounding race, gender and class have no place in modern political discourse; he notably advocated for slavery reparations for African Americans—a topic those on the contemporary conservative right refuse to legitimise.

His disdain for identity politics comes from the fact that it attempts to call attention to the differences between individuals and to lump them into various groups with accompanying grievances, in opposition to his liberal-minded universalism. Some may see it as contradictory, but Hitchens believed simultaneously that an individual’s race or gender should not be the focus of discussion, and that changes needed to be made to account for current disparities and historical aberrations. 

In this sense, identity politics can be used as a method through which all individuals can avoid marginalisation in society, rather than its current form of constant one-upmanship over oppression and demands for exceptions on the grounds of immutable characteristics.

When asked what socialists could learn from the 20th century, Hitchens said they should “learn that things such as the Enlightenment, secularism, rationality, and commitment to reason can’t be taken for granted”. I am by no means a socialist myself—and by all measures am somewhere in the centre ground—but I hope for their sake that the left takes this advice to heart, and soon.

Johnson’s book does well to present a consistent thesis regarding Hitchens’ left-wing principles, without mythologising or deifying him—one sympathises with the logic behind his stance on Iraq but it was a losing battle right from the start, which the author recognises and does not pretend otherwise. 

I wholeheartedly agree with Johnson that the Western left has a lot to learn from Hitchens, but I understand that—as I outlined from the beginning—I am certainly biased and have an almost sentimental connection to the man and his ideas. For a more critical, and arguably caustic, review of his life, I would suggest this article from the Spectator.

Overall I would definitely recommend this book, regardless of your familiarity with Christopher Hitchens. Johnson does not shy away from his own alignment with Hitchens on many of the ideas and arguments explored, and examines them in great depth and detail.

By adopting Hitchens’ hatred of the totalitarian and emphasising pluralism and universalism, I truly believe that the left can evolve from its current slimy form into an elegant butterfly that can quash the racism and nationalism of its populist right-wing counterpart.