Peter Hitchens on changing one’s mind
You may recall Christopher Hitchens, who died in 2011. His slightly younger brother Peter Hitchens – equally sardonic and intelligent – appears in this video. Both brothers were leftists in their youth and both became more conservative later on, but Peter went much further to the right and also embraced Christianity whereas Christopher remained a committed atheist.
Here Peter is being questioned in 2016 about his own change process, and he has some interesting things to say:
A lot of you are probably familiar with that phenomenon. I certainly am.
However, Hitchens goes on to add this:
Is that the case? Did “everybody” prior to the 20th century become conservative as they grew older? Of course not. There are plenty of radical writers of the 1800s, for example, who remained radical. And what of the garden variety radical back then – well, who knows? I don’t think there were any surveys.
What’s more, how uncommon is it for radicals to become more conservative as they grow older, even today? Not all that uncommon; after all, a lot of readers here would count themselves in that group. There are a significant number of such people in public life, as well.
So I’m not at all sure there’s been any marked change in the proportion of radical leftists who became more conservative as they got older in, for example, the 19th Century as compared to now.
But perhaps Hitchens is limiting his point to people who not only become more conservative as they get older but who also were once atheists and become devout Christians, as well. Granted, that is obviously going to be a smaller group than those who merely become more conservative over time. But is it really all that small compared to in the past?
I have no idea, and I don’t think Hitchens does, either.
Both brothers were/are intelligent and talented writers (both, once a time, Trotskyists), but only Peter moved in a more rational direction as he aged. This is a topic which has long been of interest to me. Five years ago, at around the time of the election, I happened across the account on Twitter of a very bright middle-aged woman who was beginning to have doubts about Crooked Hillary and her party; she is now firmly in the camp of good sense and reason. What makes her for me so interesting (although not famous, she does write for The Western Journal) is that she describes herself as having been a lifelong leftist, was formerly a lawyer, lives in Manhattan, and is of Asian descent.
God, gods, or mortal gods and goddesses. Faith is a logical domain of trust. Religion is a behavioral protocol. Ideology is their realization. Science is a philosophy and practice in a limited frame of reference from the observer.
Liberalism is a philosophy of divergence. Progressivism is a philosophy of monotonic change. Conservativism is a philosophy of moderation (e.g. pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness). Principles matter.
Is it possible his answer is embedded in the question, “Why do people not grow up anymore?”
Is it as simple as arrested development, refusal to actually become responsible accountable adults…a desire for a perpetual idyllic childhood fantasyland…etc…?
I lived in the heart of the liberal beast for many years and 40 years later not a single liberal/progressive/socialist/communist I know became conservative/libertarian. Not a one. Communism is their religion, hope, self worth. No matter how many walls fall, or how many times there is a failed commie state, they will hang in there and believe and give excuses. They may briefly change their tune in blatant self interest or in their own area of work (Conquest’s first law) but quickly revert on all other issues. I wish it weren’t so. They will never “grow up” as this is to deny their essence.
Off the top of my head, the only writer I can think of who followed a trajectory similar to Peter Hitchens’ is Malcolm Muggeridge (another Brit), who was not only a communist during his early career but actually lived in the then-Soviet Union in the 1930s. That experience turned him into an anti-communist. He converted to Christianity after WWII.
Who said it first?
“If a person is not a liberal when he is twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a conservative when he is forty, he has no head.’
OR
‘If my son is not a liberal when he is twenty, I will disown him; if he is not a conservative when he is forty, I will disown him then.’
I thought Mark Twain said that. Wrong again.
https://freakonomics.com/2011/08/25/john-adams-said-it-first/
One of the pleasures of compiling the Yale Book of Quotations was tracing and cross-referencing different versions and precursors of famous quotes. This one is usually credited to Georges Clemenceau, but W. Gurney Benham‘s Book of Quotations cites French premier and historian Francois Guizot (1787-1874), translating his statement as “Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head.” Benham asserts that “Clemenceau adopted this saying, substituting ‘socialiste’ for ‘republicain. ‘”
But I was delighted to find that John Adams had expressed a similar idea well before Guizot entered adulthood. Thomas Jefferson preserved this quip, writing in a 1799 journal that Adams had said: “A boy of 15 who is not a democrat is good for nothing, and he is no better who is a democrat at 20.”
_____
I just loved Christopher Hitchens even if I didn’t agree with him often. Such mastery of language and many other things.
I was sad that Christopher Hitchens had not converted before he died. I hoped for mercy from our merciful God.
There are many people, perhaps more than ever, stuck on stupid despite increasing age. We become more and more secular daily. We are turning into total hedonists.
Our ruin awaits. Biden and his Obamaphiles are seeing to that.
I agree with Tina on this as she writes, “I lived in the heart of the liberal beast for many years and 40 years later not a single liberal/progressive/socialist/communist I know became conservative/libertarian. Not a one.”
“…but only Peter moved in a more rational direction as he aged.”
I disagree.
CH was magnificent—and supremely eloquent in the cause of liberty—following 9/11 and until his untimely death.
(I suspect that this is because he was always more of a “contrarian” than a doctrinaire Trotskyite. To be sure, he did have a lot to live down and could never be called “conservative”; though his cultural and art/literature reviews were always an intense pleasure to read.)
Moreover, IIRC, Peter became conservative at a rather early age.
The #walkaway movement was huge a few years ago. Very moving stories both on YouTube and Facebook. All ages. They didn’t skew young, old, male, female. Seems so long ago.
“If a person is not a liberal . . . “
Sorry folks but I always thought that was dumb. And what annoys me is that conservatives keep this quote alive. It isn’t good or compassionate or kind to forcibly take money from one group and give it to another group in the name of whatever cause a person happens to be in favor of. And then the idea of disowning your child just because they don’t agree with you: also dumb.
Eva Marie, I agree.
The quote I read a long time ago was the first one and not the second which I agree is a dumb variation. While I think you are correct about the first one, I believe that one of the points of the quote is that the youth usually don’t have a head, or more precisely, experience. So frequently they wouldn’t understand your point.
Your point reminds me of Amity Shlaes’ book, The Forgotten Man. Before FDR, the forgotten man was understood, by economists anyway, to be the person being robbed in order to pay for government largesse. But FDR flipped the script. His forgotten man was the person who wasn’t getting enough government largesse.
Eva Marie,
When FaceBook shut down the “Walkaway” Page, that was one of the final straws for me on Facebook. I think “ Walkaway” was like Trump, in that it scared them and they had to shut it down. I believe they were perhaps most afraid of Trump breaking the Democrat’s near monopoly on the black vote.
I got off of Facebook to send a message to them, hoping many would follow. One of my outspoken Conservative Baptist Preacher 3rd cousins said he was staying on till they kicked him off. I do not know how long they tolerated him as that was our main way of communicating. Lives in a different state, never talk on the phone .
TommyJay, I regretted writing it was dumb but there’s no edit function. 🙁 And you’re right that when a person is young or just less experienced, then socialist ideas can sound appealing. My problem with the saying is that it sounds as if young people are liberal because they are compassionate. And they lose that compassion as they age and become conservative.
My family keeps changing. Individuals keep altering their political affinities.This seems unusual. I believe they change because of experiences.
I believe there are some grand rules in the universe, mostly scientific, which are equal to a definition of religion if you want to call it that: the physics of kindness and need for respect for life are probably going to be discovered.The purpose of life seems to be a puzzle that is deliberately hidden from us, especially if we believe in dark energy which is yelling “we are all going to disappear in a few trillion years in a big rip.”
The purpose of life is to discover the purpose for life.
@dnaxy:
Really? I thought it was:
“To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!”
I saw this headline on the page earlier today, and thought, “When I get a chance I need to recommend to neo’s readers that they search out the Eric Metaxas show where Eric frequently phones Peter Hitchens and they have some very funny, back and forth, where Eric teases Peter rather mercilessly.
I finally got a chance to dip into the post to leave my comment and I thought, “You know, I ought to click on the video link to see if it is not, in fact, Metaxas in the videos neo posted.” Lo and behold! I will definitely find time to watch the full length of these now. Metaxas and Hitchens are magic together!
Tina (3:00 pm) writes, “I lived in the heart of the liberal beast for many years and 40 years later not a single liberal/progressive/socialist/communist I know became conservative/libertarian.”
For what it’s worth, I can think of two (in my life, of course), and they immediately came to mind as soon as I considered Tina’s declaration. Both are S.T.E.M. types sporting graduate degrees and both are very successful in our society.
But I agree wholeheartedly with Tina, brushing aside my two exceptions and focusing on the remainder, which are legion. And from where I sit, yes, “They will never ‘grow up’ as this is to deny their essence.”
Zaphod…no…that is what is “good” in life.
As you know…Conan told me that.
😉
M J R; Tina; et al:
I don’t think anyone is saying such a change is common now. It certainly happens, though, and there are plenty of us online to prove it.
However, Hitchens is trying to say that until the 20th Century such a switch was so common that “everybody” did it who was on the left. I take issue with that and see no evidence for it having been especially common then or now.
As the country moves leftward, the radicals of old become centrists then conservative. Why do you think all the 50+ year old feminist are TERFs.
They still all think women should be cops, firemen, and serve in the military if they want to.
The 2016 GOP convention applauded Trumps LBGT line.
Then on the economic side you go from wanting stuff, to having stuff and not wanting it taken away.
neo,
Thanks for the response. I do hope you noticed where I wrote that “I agree wholeheartedly with Tina, brushing aside my two exceptions and focusing on the remainder, which are legion.” Left-to-right conversion has been and is relatively rare.
And yet, there exists the adage:
“Everyone is conservative about that which they know…” (or something along those lines).
That being said, I wonder how many liberal parents in Virginia (or non-parents for that matter) are hopping mad enough with the recent school board sh%@show to either switch their votes away from McAuliffe or not vote at all….
(Though I’m not sure how such a metric might be measureed…)
Barry
It’s a price we have to pay. “we” is first person plural including the speaker and one or more others involved in the issue at hand. I know this because my mother was an English teacher.
In social justice speak it means “somebody I never heard of who is probably a deplorable or poor or something. Certainly not ME!”
Strikes me that the Loudoun County parents, and others elsewhere, who were liberal never thought the first definition of “we” was going to come crashing down on their own children. So NOW it’s a problem. Well, a hypocrite who votes right is a vote we an use.
@Barry Meislin-that is Conquest’s first law, as I mentioned.
@MJR and Neo- I suppose if you are not a fully invested Commie, and a real thinker (like Neo) that you could wrest yourself from the progressive side. Short of that it seems…like no. I think because it is a combination of politics, religion, morality, social standing and acceptance, all wrapped up into one package. It is their essence-not sure how else it can be described. What conservative/libertarian folks are noticing now, I felt in SF 40 years ago. I was surrounded and isolated by these progressives/communists. It was shocking to me at the time and has made me a Cassandra to my friends/family and anyone else I felt comfortable with sharing my experiences, for this many years. Now it is banal.
n.n on October 28, 2021 at 1:59 pm said:
“… Faith is a logical domain of trust. Religion is a behavioral protocol…”
Faith is a domain of trust, but there is nothing logical about it.
Religion is probably rather more than a behavioral protocol, driven by deep inherent psychological drives (or at least inclinations) for transcendence that we still do not yet truly understand.
dnaxy on October 28, 2021 at 9:40 pm said:
“The purpose of life is to discover the purpose for life.”
Rather, the purpose of life is … the continuation of life. To propel your gene complement (and their related traits and characteristics) into the next generation, at the expense of your maladapted peers. There is no other teleology, per se. Sort of a cell level, chemistry version of Conan? The same purpose applies to humans, sea slugs, et al. Human sentience, emotion, and culture may attempt to distort this perception, but the universe does not care.
That is the replication part of life. The metabolic part is driven by hydrogen and/or hydroxyl ions traversing the cell membrane boundary, creating a free energy difference that drives all of the organic and biochemical reactions within the cell, including those related to genetic separation actions (miosis and mitosis). Aside from the occasional genetic or chemical disturbance via radiation, all of this fits within the electromagnetic realm of physics. But you know all of this already.
Tina:
I lived in the Bay Area from 1982-2016. I suppose I was one of your commie progressives. I was an activist. I went to meetings and demos. I had a clipboard and I knew how to use it…
For me it fell apart after 9-11, when my comrades were asking the boggling question, “Why do they hate us?” I knew that was the wrong question. And when I started asking my own questions, it all unraveled and quickly.
IMO the current situation is ripe for a mass reversal. The left has taken us too far, too fast and much of it obviously doesn’t work. Much of the middle is fed up with cancel culture, defund the police and transgender crazy. They can see that Biden is not moderate, not unifying and not competent.
History doesn’t move in a straight inexorable line. A backlash is coming. Most Americans aren’t committed to the left. They are going along to get along. That can change.
Hitchens was interesting; it’s the first time I’ve seen Metaxas, and I’m unimpressed with him. He’s too old to be entirely unaware of Suez, and more so, to be (at the end) unable to understand that realizing we are in an age of decline doesn’t make one unable “to get out of bed in the morning.” I’d have expected him to have read C S Lewis, who is actually surprised that someone can think so.
One thing I did not care for that Hitchens said was that what matters is one chooses to believe. Granted many do approach ideas that way, but I’ve never gotten that. Surely if one is rationally convinced, it ceases to be a matter of choice at all. I don’t choose to believe 2 + 2 = 4; I cannot disbelieve it. Choice in these cases is only appropriate when certainty is lacking, and only to the degree that it is.