{"id":1693,"date":"2010-08-19T08:23:54","date_gmt":"2010-08-19T13:23:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dangeroustalk.net\/?p=1693"},"modified":"2010-08-19T08:23:54","modified_gmt":"2010-08-19T13:23:54","slug":"why-hitchens-is-great-part-4-fellow-traveler","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.dangeroustalk.net\/?p=1693","title":{"rendered":"Why Hitchens is Great (Part 4): Fellow Traveler"},"content":{"rendered":"

In my forth blog post addressing Jeffrey T. Kuhner\u2019s Washington Times article, \u201cGod is Great\u201d<\/a> I will focus on Kuhner\u2019s ignorance about history and logic. I will also discuss his unquestioning political dogmatism. In the article, Kuhner makes a point to his fellow conservatives that Christopher Hitchens<\/a> is NOT a \u201cfellow traveler,\u201d but rather Hitchens is an evil Communist. *Face Palm*<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause of Mr. Hitchens\u2019 support for the war on terror, many conservatives have falsely embraced him as a fellow traveler.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Really Jeff, do you not know the history behind the phrase \u201cFellow Traveler?\u201d This was a phrase used largely during the McCarthy Era<\/a> to describe Communist supporters. So in one simple line of this article Kuhner equates conservatives with Communists. The irony is that almost half of Kuhner\u2019s article deals with trying to label Hitchens as a Communist.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat Mr. Hitchens remains a militant atheist should come as no surprise. He is an unadulterated Bolshevik.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is the text book definition of the ad hominem<\/a> fallacy. Before we get into the nearly half of the article which attempts to label Hitchens as the before mentioned, \u201cunadulterated Bolshevik,\u201d it really needs to be pointed out that one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Labeling Hitchens as a Communist does nothing to discredit his arguments addressing religion nor does it support any arguments in favor of religion. It is simply a red herring.<\/p>\n

As mentioned before, Kuhner took almost half of his article to attacking Hitchens\u2019 alleged political leanings. He went on at some length to point out that Hitchens opposed the Vietnam conflict<\/a> and many of Reagan\u2019s foreign policy decisions. This he considers supportive of Communism. The interesting reality is that most Americans were opposed to the Vietnam conflict and many Americans considered the particular foreign policy decisions of Ronald Reagan that Kuhner points out to be poor and even illegal. While Kuhner has every right to try to defend the invasion of Grenada<\/a> and arming the Contras, calling those who disagree with him on these issues Communists is silly.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t think one can put simple labels on Hitchens\u2019 political philosophies throughout the years. While he certainly supported certain aspects of socialism it is ridiculous to insinuate that he supported the systematic murders of tens of millions carried out by Stalin. Despite the lengthy attempt to link Hitchens to the worst crimes of Communism, Kuhner really doesn\u2019t go into any real depth in the nuances of Hitchens’ positions. Kuhner’s argument amounts to, \u201cHitchens thought Lenin was a great leader, therefore Hitchens is an evil Communist who supported everything Lenin and anything other Communists did.\u201d One can admire someone\u2019s leadership ability and even some aspects of their philosophy without having to support everything they do.<\/p>\n

Why is all this important? It really isn\u2019t, but according to Kuhner, \u201cMr. Hitchens loathes Catholicism for one simple reason: It was the Church that stood as the most powerful and consistent force against the communist occupation of Eastern Europe.\u201d And I thought Mr. Hitchens loathed the Catholic Church<\/a> because large numbers of Catholic priests fucked and continue to fuck children and the Catholic Church systematically has tried to cover it up. Among other atrocities of course.
\n
\n\"Bookmark<\/a>