Dinesh D'Souza's latest book gets a hot reception
Dinesh D'Souza, whose first book or two I rather liked, has now come out with The Enemy at Home. In it he concludes that the main reason the jihadists hate America and want to attack it, or rather 'us', is because we have become so disgustingly immoral. I could say a lot about that general premise, but it has been said a lot better by Bruce Bawer, who I am told, is a conservative.
At any rate, check out his review. Here's a sample about the reaction to 9-11:
Leftists railed that America had gotten its payback for imperialism; Jerry Falwell insisted that pagans, abortionists, gays, and others of that ilk had “helped this happen.” This claim was elaborated in an unpublished text later sent to me by a retired member of the Norwegian Parliament who blamed 9/11 on the stateside degenerates—principally “homosexual heroes and anal addicts” (yes, “anal addicts”)—who offend Muslim family values. Now right-wing hack Dinesh D’Souza makes this same accusation in a jaw-droppingly repulsive screed, The Enemy at Home. Charging that “the cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11,” he wants good Christians to recognize that Islamic values resemble their own—and that the real enemy is those fags next door. If only they’d retarget their rage, thereby showing their respect for “traditional values,” Muslims would stop hating the USA.
I guess he didn't like it.
Notice that D'Souza's basic take is that we were attacked for something wrong in our society and that we should change immediately. It's hard to interpret this as anything other than saying the terrorists have a point and we should follow their commands. Lots of people have hated this book, but conservative magazines and journals. while defending D'Souza, have not reviewed it. Which is a little odd.
posted by Clemens @ 12:50 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
That is pretty weird considering his last book (What's so great about America.)
His argument was that while Muslim/Hindu cultures emphasized/promoted morality more than Western cultures do (a dubious claim to be sure), that it was forced. In other words, there is no virtue without freedom.
Illiberal education was excellent and a must read.
--Joey
Yes. Either he was simply trying too hard to be controversial or he's on something illicit. I liked parts of Illiberal Ed, though to some extent he was creating a straw man argument.
I haven't read the book, and I disagree with some of what I've read of his assertions, but I do think most of his detractors are mischaracterizing his point. His point is not that we were bombed because we're so gosh darn immoral. It's that we try to export our immorality through cultural imperialism. In other words, it's not the, ah, "f*gs next door" that drive the Muslims mad. It's that our films, music, etc. which often enough glorifies the, ah, "f*gs next door", and get shown even in Muslim countries, drive the Muslims mad.
Getting away from, ah, "f*gs next door" (does D'Souza use that term anyway, or is it just a useful slur?), I am reminded of the attempt several years ago of Western European countries and the US to force the world, through a UN conference, to recognize abortion as a "reproductive right".
As I understand it, these are things that D'Souza is highlighting, not the immorality per se. If someone has read the book and can argue convincingly that my understanding is wrong, then by all means do so.
Here's an example of what I mean, plagiarized blatantly and unashamedly from Wikipedia: He also stated that the distorted representation of American culture on television is one of the main sources of resentment of the U.S by Muslims worldwide. D'Souza believes that while traditional Muslims are not too different from traditional Jews and Christians in America, in the media only liberal America is depicted, which by traditional standards is morally depraved; and this false image of America that is broadcast to the world both turns people in traditional cultures against America and is destructive to the traditional societies themselves.
This characterization agrees substantially with what I've read elsewhere (from people who aren't smearing the guy with foul language).
You might be right Jack, since I haven't read the book myself. But I am not sure - I read a lot of reviews very quickly and they all seemed to be saying the same thing.
In any case, I made a point of posting the link to the National Review's take on it, which still panned it. Still, it was the most positive and respectful review I read of it. Do you have any others?
Post a Comment
<< Home