Who said this?
“There is no way to restore the culture without winning the war on terror. Conversely, the only way to win the war on terror is to win the culture war. Thus we arrive at a sobering truth. In order to crush the Islamic radicals abroad, we must defeat the enemy at home.”
Ann Coulter? Rush Limbaugh? Bill O’Reilly? Sean Hannity? Nah.
The “sobering truth” in question is that arrived at by our illustrious co-ethnic Dinesh D’Souza, in his new book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, which is to appear in January. Blogger and Vanity Fair writer James Wolcott received a galley copy, and offers an advance review, of which here are some choice bits:
It’s one thing when Michael Savage or Ann Coulter denounce liberals as heathen traitors. One spouts halitosis on the radio, the other is an exhibitionist hag; both cater to their fan base. But D’Souza isn’t some low-grade, high-volume performance artist. He’s a research scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, which he thanks in the acknowledgments “for providing me with the institutional support to do my work.” D’Souza writes, speaks, and thinks like something hatched in a think tank–a careerist toady.
The theme of the book is quite simple, and vile.
“In this book I make a claim that will seem startling at the outset. The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11.”
Then the qualifiers begin multiplying. The term ‘cultural left’ doesn’t refer to the Democratic Party, nor to all liberals. (Peter Beinart presumably gets a pass.) Nor is he saying that cultural lefties actually brought the towers down. He isn’t so rash as to suggest Molly Ivins piloted one of the planes, parachuting to safety before impact. So what is he saying?
“I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector [profiteers are always patriots, of course], and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world.”
Note well: the primary cause. Not the treatment of the Palestinians, the caging and starving of those on the Gaza Strip, the hundreds of thousands of clusterbomb droplets left behind in Lebanon, the U.S. military bases on Arab soil, Abu Ghraib, the Mideast tyrannies propped up by American money and influence–these are secondary. Muslims are angry, D’Souza concedes, but they are mostly angry because their anger has been fueled and fanned by the cultural left.
“Thus without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened.”
I like that “Thus,” as if he’s actually proven something.
“I realize that this is a strong charge,” D’Souza writes, “one that no one has made before.”
The reason it hasn’t been made before is that it’s a sleazy, shameless, ignorant, ahistorical, tendentious, meretricious lie, one that was waiting for the right brazen liar to come along to promote it, and here he is, and his name is Dinesh D’Souza…
The most excellent evisceration continues at some length, with examples, details, and specific debunkings; check it out. And in the spirit of fairness and balance, you can pre-order your copy of The Enemy Within for $17.79 here.
I dont think Rameh Ponununu is as vile as D’Souza.
‘From the outside’ doesn’t offer much of an explanation. What is inside and outside? Very vague terms.
I don’t have the material at hand right now to delve into and dissect Chomksy, so I’m going to take a pass on it. It’s my position that his material, though supported by whatever he digs up, ultimately isn’t very helpful or constructive. Chomsky having a political vision doesn’t mean he is a politician or policy maker. You, I or anyone else for that matter can have a political agenda and theory to propose without really having anything to do with the establishment.
Like I said before: I think there is ala-carte value in the material these guys collect, but not much in the conclusions they draw.
I see another FoleyGate developing here.. DDS is a right-wing tool, and you can only guess what sort of skeletons are hiding in his closet. But really, more often than not, those who “preach” turn out to be a worst “sinners”..
sick of this hypocrisy..
I love Google.. and I really hate this guy..
http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/118/know-your-right-wing-speakers-dinesh-dsouza
You’re making an assumption here that Chomksy would appeal to people of intellect. There are people of intellect who equally view his stuff as utter garbage. Last I saw, Chavez was waving a Chomsky book around at the UN. I don’t consider him a person of ‘intellect’, though definitely a savvy politician. But does that mean [Chomsky’s] audience appeals to crazed power hungery politicians? No. Frankly, I don’t have the data or know how to assume how intelligent Chomksy’s audience is as is Dsouza’s.
Chomsky uses a combination of emotive words thrown together with facts and information and presents himself well, that in itself, does not qualify how valid the argument is. He just does a really good job of using language structure to amplify the effect his selective facts have on the reader. The guy is smart, no doubt about it, but I don’t pay engineers to give me a health check up, either. Doctors and engineers are both smart, but each has their own expertise. Chomsky’s was/is linguistics.
Something may be unsubstantiated and crudely put AND have an element of truth in it, or not. Something may be put forward in a logical and cohesive manner, yet, be completely wrong or not. Personally, how smart someone sounds is different than how valuable their analysis is. Sounding smart helps in getting people to listen. Wall Street analyists who propped Enron or whoever up sounded smart and logical, too.
I don’t think Chomsky or Dsouza are ‘hustlers’. Both seem to be intelligent people who geniuinely believe in what they propose/write, but they’re just people like you and me – only difference is they have access to publishers, write quite well on compelling topics.
Seriosuly, it would give D’Souza an orgasm to hear that he’s being compared to Chomsky. Chomsky has been extremely influential in defining the leftist world-view, and one of the reasons his ideas may seem commonplace or not useful to you is because they are now so widely accepted, at least in leftist circles. But Chomsky was the first to say those things, and he should get credit for that. Also he was one of the pioneers in the resistance to the Vietnam war, and has in that way made an important contribution to American history.
D’Souza is just a pandering fool who just tells the far right what it wants to hear. No one ever accused him of originality or influence.
AMfD — I am certainly not making any claims that either person is “vile,” much less comparing whether one is more vile than the other. And I haven’t read either book. However, here is conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan’s relatively balanced assessment of at least one aspect of his book (i.e., the, um, aggressive, arguably underhanded sales pitch), and of Ponnuru himself (apparently a nice guy who doesn’t typically demagogue):
(Via Brendan Nyhan.)
I think we might actually have plenty of agreement on much of this.
It’s my position that his material, though supported by whatever he digs up, ultimately isn’t very helpful or constructive. Check out this link. There was a little feud that Chomsky had with an editor out here in Austin. Chomsky came out smelling like roses. I think his opinion on the Israel-Palestine issue, generally, and the response to the recent Hezbollah incursion, specifically, is worth paying attention to.
piedpiper: I know you were not comparing.
If nothing else, at least the sales pitch for Ponnuru’s book dovetails with the rhetoric surrounding D’Souza’s — and Siddhartha’s use of the word “hustler” is an apt description in each case. Beyond that, I’m making no other claim here.
The above contradicts itself, unless you assume everyone is a leftist. Also, you are assuming who know me, my intentions, or what I find useful or not. Chomsky and Dsouza are both useful to me, in varying degrees.
Read my verbose posts above. I didn’t say Chomksy didn’t serve a useful purpose. Useful purpose or popularity of an idea/ideology doesn’t make it the absolute truth or right. Like I said, there is ala carte value in his stuff (as most media, some more so than others), however, to me his writings or anyone else for that matter don’t represent the holy grail.
Dsouza isn’t as bad as it seems, nor is Chomsky as great/untouchable. Whatever…to each your own.
My assumption of his appeal to the intellect is not unsubstanstiated, but of course you can still deny it. You may or may not agree with his conclusions, but he makes a sound argument worth reading and understanding, and thats my only point.
By your logic if Chavez were to wave the latest book by Bob Woodward does that make him less of journalist? That would be argument of say D’Souza!
GROAN! This kind of irrationality is why politics is a turn off and timewaster. It takes a lot of fine tuning to the adaptive bs filter and one has to constantly adjust the filter coefficients to get some decent facts.
Liberals are responsible for 9/11 is the same kind of crap that the islamofacist put out when saying the america deserves it because of their amoral promiscous lifestyle.
It should be ok to criticise the so called left or right(the labels dont mean anything anymore).
It is perfectly OK to criticize the last administration for botching up issues relating to khobar tower the cruise missile attack on afghanistan, as well as prior binladen sighting when he was traveling on a UAE military plane.
Similarly it is OK to criticize the current administration goofing up on coming up with a constitution in iraq where personal freedom are not guaranteed. The recent developments in curbing the press would be a big F\’up. As well as still having no decent formulation on what to do with the oil revenue that iraq would get, Setting up a powerful police legal system. As well as improving Education.
And it would have been proper but that neither liberals/conservatives did much to pressure musharraf on bin laden, taliban, gilani, mullah omar,as well as reducing the role of army in the pakistani state. When he was here all folks talked about was bull. He had said it on one occasion that armitrage said this, and my intelligence chief said this and i am sticking by it, so rather than advance any issues no one said any thing else….
I think the most prejudiced and stupid people are going into journalism and political science and it shows when I read anything or watch any news show they allways have an answer and pursue a story with that bias rather than do anything informative.
Shankar:
I checked that link out. This is what I was talking about Chomsky:
If he left “U.S” out of it, it would be far more objective. The US does back Israel, allowing it to purchase American hardware and support dollars (which second to Israel, Egypt gets). But a subtle shift in language, saying “U.S-Israeli”, paints a different picture. By emphasizing “US” first, he also constructs the US as the primary culprit. Regardless of your position on the fight, Israeli’s were fighting, shooting, and dying. Not US troops.
I can live with that. I was piqued because I feel he is often made into some kind of a leftie nut case, which he is not, and I would object to anyone comparing him to D’Souza. If that was not your intention, let us drop it here.
If you are interested, here is a defense of Chomsky by Christopher Hitchens (the right-winger). Though it is rather old (1985), I think it is still interesting.
Umm.. Hitchens is NOT a right winger. He is of note as a long time leftist who alienated his friends by supporting the war in Iraq
Badmash:
the freedom vs. equality debate is a classic one because the two will always be in opposition to each other, as montesquieu often pointed out. the phrase “hating freedom” is a little too hyperbolic for me but the fact remains that political systems like socialism and communism put a premium on equality at the expense of liberty.
To believe that all political thinkers love freedom is to rob yourself of an understanding of some of history’s most profound thinkers (marx, marcuse, maybe niezsche) and influential revolutionaries (hitler, bin laden, castro).
so when it comes to the political extremes, one of which often finds itself in the ivy tower, it’s not completely inaccurate to say; “they hate us because we are free”.
Vinay:
You missed my point. Chomsky’s appeal or Dsouza’s appeal to people of intellect or not is based upon your definition of ‘intellect’. I make no claims about who or who isn’t intelligent, or even claim to know the IQ makup of the audience.
My anecdote of Chavez was to point out that Chomsky may appeal to a wider audience just as Dsouza may appeal to a wider audience, both’s audience may be inclusive of people of intellect and folks who YOU wouldn’t classify as such. Smart people read plenty of things and have a ton they disagree on. Chomsky, Dsouza, whoever all fall under such categories. So, if any here actually read Dsouza, they’d be reading it because it appealed to their basic unsubstantiated instinct? I try to read things from different political viewpoints. I’m sure many others do, too. I like to read things for myself and think for myself.
I never denied your ‘substantiated’ claim that Chomsky DOESN’T appeal to people of ‘intellect’, was trying to highlight that you were assuming it only appealed to such people, while Dsouza only appealed to those who essentially weren’t.
He makes an argument worth reading at times, which I never denied (Did I say don’t read him?) Wow, I didn’t realize a critique of Chomksy would stir this pot.
Duh, I’m sure everyone knows it’s US foreign policy that caused 9-11………
And, what razib said. He’s brown. Except he’s an uncle tom, which is really an
oreo, coconut, I mean something that is brown on the outside but really white on the inside. FYI.Actually it is more complicated. From the wikipedia:
“He was formerly a Trotskyist and a fixture in the left wing publications of Britain and America. But a series of disagreements beginning in the early 1990s led to his resignation from The Nation shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks. While Hitchens’s idiosyncratic ideas and positions preclude easy classification, he is a vociferous critic of what he describes as “fascism with an Islamic face,” and he is sometimes described as a “neoconservative”. Hitchens describes himself as “on the same side as the neo-conservatives”, and referring to his “temporary neocon allies”. Hitchens no longer considers himself a Trotskyist or even a socialist; yet he maintains that his political views have not changed significantly.”
To the best of my knowledge, he has never redupiated this article, which is still widely quoted on his behalf.
After reading about half of one of D’Souza’s previous books, it’s apparent that the guy is a horrible scholar. He doesn’t even deserve to be desrcibed as a scholar. His writings are filled with straw man arguments and total disregard for evidence which contradicts his thesis. The only reason he is at the Hoover Institute is because he’s a brown guy talking like a conservative white guy, there’s no way he deserves any recognition on the basis of the quality of his scholarship.
Right: The left caused 9-11. Left: The right caused 9-11. Osama: Look, I caused 9-11, okay? Just because I am buried (ed aside: hopefully, says MD) under a pile of rubble in the hinterlands of Pakistan does not mean you can steal credit for my work!
Actually it’s not that complicated. Hitchens was writing for the Nation and other similar publications those days…his 1985 defense of Chomsky was as a true blue Leftist. Internatl interventions to promote democracy used to be a progressive cause….Hitchens hasn’t changed, his compatriots have.
So the left has become the right and the right has become the left? That actually is complicated 🙂 .
HAHAHAHAHHA. Good one MD.
Actually, with the recent flurry of AQ#2 video tapes, many are starting to think he’s actually dead. For insurgencies, from what I’ve read here and there, it seems it is imperitive the face of the insurgency get airtime (or propoganda time) with the audience he’s trying to coopt.
If he is alive, I think its time the US called a bluff in and use propoganda to ‘call him out’ on video. Not old or spliced video, or even audio, but video. AQ#2’s been getting waaaaayy too much airtime in comparison to Bin Laden. If the dude shows up alive, it provides valuable information, if not, it provides information (all for purposes of psychological and information warfare).
Thank you Siddhartha for pointing out the rampant idiocy that IS Dinesh D’Souza.
When he proudly proclaimed that his white wife ‘doesn’t even think of [me] as Indian’ it kind of said it all.
He’s not all Brown, Razib. There’s that little red patch on his nose from being near so much Republican ass.
And of course his hatred of universities goes back to his old favourite, hating on affirmative action at universities. I researched his earlier works for a race relations essay and was disgusted to see that he manipulated and used the words of Martin Luther King to argue that King would not have wanted affirmative action.
Anyways I’m off too watch some Hollywood movies, get back to me lecture and soak up the cultural leftist propaganda around me as part of my evil little plan to further Osama’s cause.
FukYoCouch, Dinesh D’Souza!
this echos reagan’s line; “i didn’t leave the democratic party, they left me” (mostly in regards to communism) and RR was described at the time as a neocon. the label has many meanings and one of them is that they are leftists who broke w/ the left on the basis of leftist principles.
nonetheless, hitchs support for the war is clearly an manisfestation of his leftist anti-fascism.
I din’t mean to accuse you of not reading him! Sorry about that, I just wanted to stress on the point I wanted to make, being that Chomsky makes more sense. The criticism of Chomsky wasn’t the issue but comparing him to D’Souza was! I don’t believe in most conclusions of Chomsky either, I think he tends to be idealistic (just my opinion) but I think it’s wrong to put his work on the same level as D’Souza on qualities like logic, reasoning or analysis.
hey tash, where is saurav? did abhi drive him away like The Nation drove away Hitch? tell him i say hi.
Not my intention, was just trying to cover ground on dudes who wrote about stuff that wasn’t their core competancy.
The reaction to this is shocking given how many folks are convinced that if Bush hadn’t been elected, Huntington hadn’t promoted “Clash of Civilizations”, if we hadn’t brought this on our selves, etc. that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. I suppose you could say it’s a matter of perspective. But, there’s a pretty big diff in how “assymetric” the response is here…
is this what it takes for take Bandra out of the boy? 🙂
Manju:
This is true. But in the phrase “equality at the expense of liberty”, “expense” is the operative term, and I don’t like to believe it’s a zero sum. Even after fully acknowledging the various (and respectively valid) definitions of the term, I believe democracy ought to be inclined towards equality more than liberty, otherwise what would be the point of liberty? Not really challenging you because there’s not much to argue, and because I know this debate always goes in circles, but I just wanted to comment on that one bit.
Anyway, we are dissecting Dinesh D’Souza’s position here in a semi-academic way, but that’s because SM has been familiarized with the guy for a while now. Can someone tell me how well known he is by the American public and how he is received by them? How is he received by the desi community?
brilliant argument. Replete with Aryan nation reference. Who says discourse on the left has lost it’s sophistication?
In any case, it’s pretty classic comparitive politics (e.g. they’ve been studying this stuff for hundreds of years) that most systems are about varying degrees of trading off b/t some inherently conflicting values –
(and, of course, there are a few other values… like NationalPower (e.g. we work to make the state great!))
In other words, is there any reason to take him seriously?
No I prefer the school of thought that equates equality with the capacity for freedom (Aristotle as opposed to Plato). I’m aware of the discussions that pit freedom vs. equality (Berlin, Arrow etc) but I don’t put too much stake in their rather exaggerated dichotomy – as others have shown the lines are more blurry than they are made out to be.
(Btw, I tend to think that texts like Marcuse’s One Dimensional Man are critical rather than supportive of the limits to human freedom)
To pretend that this freedom/equality dialectic, and not outright xenophobia, is at the root of much of what is going on now – I find that quite rich! Way funnier than “they hate freedom”
Vinod, Manju – the “libertaryanism” comment was made as I was writing that comment out quickly in the middle of work. It was not directed at either of you personally, but rather at a school of thought. Apologies if offense was taken.
so why not make that argument first vs. invoke Aryan nation hyperbole? it’s far more constructive. I’ll note that every invocation of race, thinly veiled “you are race X thus you must believe Y” argument, “uncle tom’, etc. seems to be coming from one side of the political spectrum on this thread….
Can we also stop “if you are believe X you must be at biased Y ” kind of arguments which seem to be coming from one side of the political specturm on this blog.
why are there idiots like dinesh d’souza in this world? why? why?!!?!?!?!
Is this the silly season for conservative commentators?
sakshi – it’s always silly season for “public intellectuals” or even television commenters, whether they are of the left or right stripe.
Righty commenter: Man, these tax cuts are kinda stupid but I get paid to say the opposite (opens pie hole, belches garbage). Left commenter: Man, I kinda love these tax cuts, but I get paid to say the opposite (opens pie hole, belches garbage).
And so on, and so on, and so on. O’Reilly vs. Franken? Fish. In. A. Barrel.
But, if you’re really lucky, you get to work in academia which is a true meritocracy and totally off topic to this discussion, but what the heck.
Begin scene
Junior academic: I have too much clinical work/and or teaching to publish. Senior academic: It’s great that you do so much clinical work/teach. But I cannot promote you if you do not publish. Junior academic: But I don’t have time to publish unless I make the kids stupid or kill patients by ignoring clinical/teaching work. Senior academic: Looks away, clears throat, and says, What have you published lately? Junior academic: crickets Junior academic: I’m leaving academia. Senior academic: Says, that’s too bad. Thinks – I’m late for the _____ club dinner/cocktail hour.
End scene.
I wonder if there were some “unique” experiences or differences in upbringing that D’Souza and other immigrants like John Yoo experienced to put them so far right in the political spectrum, whereas the overwhelming majority of academic and professional desis and other Asians I’ve met throughout the country (yes, an observation based purely on my own experiences) are from center to way left.
You answered your own question, No Desh. They are academic and professional, which, regardless of brownitude, always skew left.
GujuDude, huge U.S.-Israeli escalation of attacks on Gaza If he left “U.S” out of it, it would be far more objective. Yes. That’s why I said that our opinions on Chomsky are probably not very different. Did I also mention that he is an anarchist? (He’s gotta love the situation in Iraq today 🙂 Just kidding, of course).
In the case of Chomsky, I make an exception. I give a limited number of “Pass”es to a small number of people, basically academics, in a small number of areas in articulating drastically different points of view. In the case of Chomsky, I am willing to give him a very wide berth, specifically in the specific area of the Israel-Palestine issue. Even if they seem to come from way out in the left field. How limited the number of passes you give out is is, I think, determined by your political inclinations.
Speaking of academics, academia and smart people, Amardeep and Razib are on Radio Open Source tonight for the topic “What Should College Teach”. Big ups to both of you. The Mutiny continues to push space and time.
O’Reilly vs. Franken
I have listened for hours to both O’Reilly and Franken. O’Reilly is way more stupid and ridiculous than Franken.
But…ya gotta admit that Franken can be pretty stupid and ridiculous.
Shankar:
Your position seems sound. I haven’t picked apart Dsouza here simply because others have done it already, really.
Peace out.
This is probably truer than we often realize. The consistent sense of humorless outrage that both O’Reilly and Olbermann exhibit comes across as so phoney. It seriously wears me down.
But I think Jon Stewart is cool! 🙂