One could be forgiven for thinking that Peter Hitchens' career has simply been spent causing controversy and attracting attention through near-extremist opinions. In his early days, he was a Trotskyist and member of the Labour Party. Over time, his views mellowed and then solidified at the other end of the British political spectrum as he adopted an ultra-traditionalist approach to politics, religion and culture. Perhaps this ought not surprise us - after all, Peter is the brother of the evangelical atheist Christopher Hitchens and controversy may appear a family trait. Perhaps the only surprise ought to be that the man who has come to loathe change in Britain so much has changed so very much himself.
Peter, a graduate of the University of York, is without doubt amongst the more controversial political commentators in Britain today - and his controversy in relentless. Perhaps best described as an evangelical ultra-traditionalist, the majority of Hitchens views stem, as we shall see in the Sunday Review, from a belief in an idealised past (circa 1950s) in which Britain was a near-perfect nation. Vindicated by WWII (although he would later come to think we ought not have fought the Nazis in this war in the manner in which we did) and culturally Christian if nothing else, this was a time of greatness for Peter, who must only wish to be returned to it. However, this is not simply an idealised image we have regretfully moved away from, this is an age we can reclaim (leading to Peter Hitchens' desire for such policies as capital punishment reinstated).
TPR is not sure he understands Peter Hitchens at all. A flag-bearer for the traditional right, yet a former Trotskyist who now regrets the details of Britain's role in WWII, it feels impossible to fully understand the evolution of this man's politics. Not least because this happily married man, afforded so much air-time for his views, must lead a very comfortable life in a country he feels has - although without reserve - gone to the dogs. With our review of The Abolition of Britain, let's hope we can understand the man and his complexities more than TPR currently seems able to.
Find other Peter Hitchens book here
and check back here on Sunday for our review of 'The Abolition of Britain'.
This is Peter Hitchens, using the log-in 'Clockback'.
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to know where I have ever said anything to support the statement that I have a 'a belief in an idealised past (circa 1950s) in which Britain was a near-perfect nation.' My opponents often claim it. I don't happen to think it.
Nor, for that matter, have I ever said that 'we should not have fought the Nazis', just that our declaration of war on Germany in September 1939 was ill-timed and its pretext, the preservation of Poland's independence, dishonest and unattainable.
I do not think the author of this summary, which appears to rely on second-hand and hostile accounts of my life and views, is simply unqualified for his or her task.
It also contains basic factual errors. I was not a 'Trotskyist member of the Labour Party'.('Trotskyite', if you care, is not as description but a term of abuse) I joined the Labour Party some years after I ceased to be a Trotskyist. All this material is on public record, and has been described in detail in my books.
You say here 'TPR is not sure he understands Peter Hitchens at all.'
Peter Hitchens is quite sure that TPR doesn't. But that is because TPR hasn't actually tried to do so, but has contented itself with some received opinion, unchecked and unresearched.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments - as I said to you privately, I do very much appreciate your engagement in the blog.
I feel my post may be fairer than you credit it with being. However, I have sought to make caveats in three areas in the revised edition (now available). Firstly, in distinguishing between your days as a "Trotskyist" (I am happy to use your preferred terms) and your days in the Labour Party and twice in editing comments to focus on your criticisms of Britain's engagement in the war rather than the undertaking of war itself. I hope you are happier with this arrangement.
On certain other issues, I would not claim this is an objective assessment. After all, I self-reference throughout it and refer to my own understanding of you and your politics. Therefore, my focus on what I perceive to be your ultra-traditionalism are based on my opinion and, friend or foe alike (and I would always aim to be in the former category) may feel is a somewhat fair assessment and not inherently a criticism.
Yours,
ThePoliticalReader.
Peter Hitchens - so fond of debate as long as no one contradicts him. They must obey the opinions recieved from him. I made a mild contribution to his debating club on the daily mail site, on the subject of his wish to hang his fellow citizens and was banned. Something he had been keen to do for a while from the way he had been behaving. He critises the BBC for censoring him but no one's allowed to really contradict him on The Mail's site.
ReplyDelete