NP Left responses "disgraceful" says Hitchens

[Phil Wise]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: NP Left responses "disgraceful" says Hitchens


> on 14/10/01 2:53 PM, Phil Wise at philwise at paradise.net.nz wrote:
>
> > If you are right it makes PP Mc's piece particularly lazy - I would
assume
> > he must be so confident in his readership's views that they can share an
> > understanding that a large and heterogenious "group" such as the "modern
> > left" have these failings, as  a whole.  To be honest, not being part of
> > such a conservative readership, I'm not sure what it is he's referring
to at
> > all.
>
> I don't want to labour the point, and I certainly don't categorise myself
as
> part of some "conservative readership", whatever that might mean, but it's
> the hard-line stance against globalisation and military intervention in
> Afghanistan, and the vituperative "if you don't agree you're a fascist"
> rhetoric of the Left bloc, that he is referring to. The example he
provides
> is that of Hitchens, who still considers himself to be "on the Left" while
> supporting both globalisation and the military strikes. Hitchens has come
to
> realise that there is no substance to all the anti-this, anti-that bluster
> of the militant Left, no practical alternatives, no willingness to engage
in
> a dialogue with other points of view, just spitefulness and sour grapes.
> And, on present evidence, that seems to be a pretty accurate criticism.
>
> best

Sigh.  That may be an accurate characterisation of Hitchens's view, but it
doesn't make him right (and once again, the example of Hitchens is asserted
and not demonstrated).  One point to make is that in any movement that has a
high proportion of idealistic young people among its members, so that it
will be reasonably easy to find silly statements from some people.  But my
point in responding in the first place was that Mr Mc's piece was full of
anti-this bluster, spitefulness, and clearly no dialogue with alternative
views, since his audience apparently "knows" that the "left" is bankrupt
without having to be told in what way, exactly.

The "left bloc" has never responded to anything, as far as I can tell, with
"if you don't agree, then you're a fascist" rhetoric.  Maybe some individual
voices that don't know what they are talking about.  However, attacks from
the "right" (and I don't mean you here, I refer to pundits who are
publishing, and I'll take your word that you're not among any "conservative
readership") have had a significant minority accusing the "left" and those
who don't agree of hatred of America or some such, a similar rhetorical
dishonesty.  It is bullshit, to be frank.  But if you said that they hated
many of America's actions overseas, and that they don't trust the same
corporations that put their money in after the Government's bulldozed
striking Tanzanarian miners into a pit to suddenly become the savour of the
workers and the poor, or after a CIA sponsored massacre of hundreds of
thousands of Indonesian leftists, then you'd largely be right.  There's a
huge and multifaceted difference between hating that sort of shit and hating
"America".  To conflate the two is a cheap shot in this climate.

phil