Fascinated by Christopher Hitchens' decision to quit writing for The Nation, the folks at NRO are debating the precise nature of his politics as they presently stand. Jonah Goldberg argues that Hitch has become a Man of the Right:

Hitchens has been stranded on the Right as the tide of post-modern, multicultural gobbledygook has carried the rest of his old movement further out to sea. So now Hitchens stands against virtually all of the PC junk. He rejects the silly games based upon the idea that words have no fixed meanings. Yes, he still believes ñ no doubt partly out of pride and nostalgia ñ some silly or even repugnant things about the Cold War and Communism. But the Cold War no longer defines who is on the Right (and, if I recall correctly, there were quite a few Right-wingers with serious problems with the Cold War to begin with). What defines the Right these days, increasingly, is a fundamental belief in the goodness of Western Civilization, a recognition of the threats posed to it, internally and externally, and a rejection of moral relativism in all its forms. He is no conservative. No one who hates religion as much as he does could be. But I do think these things put him on the leftward fringe of the Right.

Andrew Stuttaford is shocked on Hitchens' behalf:

Christopher Hitchens would be appalled to see himself described as 'a man of the right'. Far better, perhaps, would be to make the (always flattering) comparison with George Orwell. It's possible to reject socialist cant without leaving the socialist camp. Orwell broke decisively with his fellow leftist intellectuals in his willingness to renounce (and denounce) Communism. Nevertheless, a quick glance at Orwell's views on, say, the economy (governmental control, widespread nationalization and so on) reveal a man who remained firmly on the left.

So it is with Hitchens. The extreme multiculturalist piety of today's left is in many ways analogous to the Stalinist faith of its predecessors both in its self-righteousness and, ultimately, its masochism. Breaking with it should not be taken to imply that Hitchens will signing up for the GOP any time soon. A quick glance at, for example, Martin Amis' Koba The Dread (and Hitchens' shifty response to it), reveal Christopher Hitchens to be a man still firmly possessed by the delusions of his leftist intellectual heritage. Even if you take his attacks on Clinton (best summarized in that marvelous polemic No-One Left To Lie To) they are essentially a critique from the left (Clinton betrayed the hopes of 1992) rather than the right.
My guess is that in viewing the increasing rift with a number of his former comrades, Hitchens would argue that it is they, not he, who have split with the traditions of the left.

Interesting stuff, as is Hitchens' excellent piece on Byron in the current Atlantic. It's supposed to be a book review, but Hitchens gets so into his subject that the review part pretty much melts away. Hard not to imagine that Hitchens' disillusionment with leftist disingenuousness doesn't have something to do with this turn to pure, unadulterated literary criticism (the kind properly politicized literary critics wouldn't be caught dead writing).