The independent thinker is always suspect to the "my party, right or wrong" brigade just as the "apostate", the "turncoat", arouses spitting venom from former comrades.

Such was the case with Christopher Hitchens who died on December 15. Tribute were paid to his lacerating wit and the meticulous, delicious relish with which he demolished the reputations of various public figures, from Bill Clinton to Mother Teresa. They also noted his ability to produce a polished 1000 words even when he had consumed enough booze to put most people on the critical list.

Hitchens started out, like his brother Peter, as a man of the Left. He had all the traditional bogey figures: Henry Kissinger (about whom he was especially and steadfastly vitriolic), Ronald Reagan, Bush Senior and Margaret Thatcher. He opposed the first Iraq War in 1991, memorably telling Charlton Heston to "keep his hairpiece on" when the veteran actor bridled at being asked to name a country that borders Iraq during a TV debate.

Double standards
Yet even in his "Lefty" days he could be unpredictable, supporting Thatcher's decision to recapture the Falklands, in 1982, and then defending Salman Rushdie against the ridiculous fatwa in 1989. That gave an early sign of Hitchens' readiness to oppose what he saw as tyranny in any of its guises. It was no coincidence that George Orwell was his favourite writer; his literary hero also abhorred totalitarianism of the Left and Right.

September 11 was a defining moment for Hitchens. He rejected the idea, endemic on the far Left at the time, that Western leaders had sown the seeds of Islamic fanaticism – even legitimised it – through their pro-Israeli stance, although Hitchens himself was a trenchant critic of Israel. He abhorred the Left's double standard when confronted with dictators of their own persuasion, the twisted logic that said a Pinochet should be tried but a Mugabe exonerated.  

One particular "socialist" epitomised everything Hitchens detested. George Galloway, the "member for Baghdad North", in debate with Hitchens in 2005, infamously said that the planes on 911 "did not fall out of a clear blue sky". The implication was that the suicide bombers had a reason for their evil deeds. To many who watched the debate – and it was akin to a heavyweight boxing match – it seemed that Hitchens had emerged as Ali over Galloway's Frazier, the marginal victor on points.

Losing friends
Hitchens not only defended George W Bush over his handling of 9/11. He also supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Yet Hitchens was only echoing what many had long felt, that Iraq could not continue as Saddam Hussein's personal "torture chamber" indefinitely. It seemed that too many Leftists reserved their worst invective not for the tyrants themselves but for those on their own side who dared oppose them or for Leftists whose ideological purity was deemed to be suspect. For example, anyone reading Tony Benn's diaries in the 1980s could be forgiven for thinking that Neil Kinnock was more of a monster than Saddam Hussein.

Hitchens was effective in arguing his case that the West had not "provoked" acts of Islamic terrorism, that ceding ground to fanatics would not make London or New York more secure. The notion that we were fuelling attacks by Jihadists was reminiscent of the old argument that we should not oppose Hitler's anti-Semitism lest it make him more extreme – and doubtless MORE persuaded of a global Jewish conspiracy.

Hitchens' battles with the likes of Galloway and Michael Moore meant an end to some friendships. Most famously Hitchens fell out with close friend and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal over the former's lacerating criticism of president Bill Clinton. Yet Hitchens did not seem to care. He was also more than ready to antagonise new friends as he showed when he underwent water boarding to prove it really was torture.

Sibling rivalry
Hitchens' relationship with his younger brother, Peter, was strained. Both moved rightwards, although Christopher became an internationalist while Peter seemed more concerned with matters of national concern to Britain.

The older brother supported the second Iraq war, along with Johann Hari, Nick Cohen and others on the Left – although Hari later recanted. Peter, on the other hand, the traditional conservative, fiercely opposed the intervention. They seemed always to have contrary opinions on everything. Christopher was pro-Blair, pro-Iraq war, even (mildly) pro-Bush in the 2004 election, vociferously atheist and critical of Israel. Younger brother excoriated Blair and Bush, was a Christian, opposed interventions in Iraq and Libya and was a committed Zionist.

Christopher once called Peter "an idiot" but they seemed to have been reconciled at the time of his death, although Peter said they were careful to avoid sensitive topics in emails.

Perhaps the big question in the wake of Hitchens' tragically premature death is not – Why did he leave the Left? but rather Why did the Left leave him? How is that that despots like Chavez, Mugabe, Gaddafi and Saddam came to be defended by the leftist intelligentsia?

I mourn Christopher Hitchens' passing, although, of course, I never met him. I will miss his impassioned prose and performances on television. It seems certain that not only Hitchens' traditional opponents but also some members of the insufferably smug squad will sleep soundly now that Hitchens is gone. How very sad!