BOOK REVIEW: D'Souza only Partially Correct
Posted by: Christian P. Milord | 07/18/2008 6:37 PM
Title: "The Enemy At Home (The Cultural Left And Its Responsibility for 9/11)"
Author: Dinesh D'Souza
Info: Doubleday (2007) 333 pages $26.95
Dinesh D'Souza, a former Hoover Institution Fellow at Stanford, has written a dozen books on conservatism. Some of these include: "Illiberal Education," "The Virtue Of Prosperity," What's So Great About America," "Letters To A Young Conservative," "What's So Great About Christianity," and so on. He spent a number of years preparing a treatise about the root causes of 9/11, and came up with "The Enemy At Home (The Cultural Left And Its Responsibility for 9/11)."
Several books have been written about events leading up to 9/11, the infamous day itself, and the horrific aftermath. Some plausible reasons for 9/11 (such as failure to connect the intelligence dots) have emerged from across the political spectrum, along with a slew of conspiracy theories. In his book, D'Souza offers a two-pronged thesis to explain the 9/11 atrocity, and shares some strategies on how to prevent future strikes. His main point is: "In order to crush the Islamic radicals abroad, we must defeat the enemy at home."
In his first premise, the author notes that the cultural left in America should shoulder much of the blame for 9/11. He claims that the moral relativism exported by leftist academics, activists, Hollywood, the mainstream media, and liberal politicians, has angered many Muslims. He asserts that hedonistic values add fuel to the fire of existing resentments held by radical Muslims toward Western society.
However, D'Souza forgot to mention the legitimate anger that Americans have regarding the Saudi sponsorship of militant Wahhabi media outlets, mosques, and schools in the West. These organizations teach hate and an intolerant brand of fanatic Islamism.
D'Souza contends that if the secular left had kept its decadent lifestyle at home and refrained from exporting its cultural imperialism, it's likely that 9/11 would not have occurred. He points out that from the Muslim perspective, the 9/11 attacks weren't caused by American foreign policies, American prosperity, or the fact that Americans cherish democracy and liberty.
It appears that the author gives the left too much credit for helping to generate this diabolical holocaust. D'Souza fails to delve into the possibility that even if there were a marginalized left in America, or even no leftist movement at all, OBL could have manufactured grievances to justify al-Qaeda's cowardly onslaught. Terrorists appear to be just as plugged in to the grievance industry apparatus as are folks around the globe who are too immature to develop personal responsibility.
Obviously, D'Souza also pins the blame for 9/11 on al-Qaeda terrorists. He notes that Islamists began to attack Western targets after they realized that they couldn't conquer an Islamic state. The lone exception for this rule is the Islamic Republic of Iran, which the Shia mullahs have ruled with an iron fist since 1979.
The author is convinced that in a peculiar way the cultural left has an ideological alliance with fascist Islamists regarding ultimate goals. Apparently, leftists and Islamists want freedom and power for themselves, but want to deny freedom to folks that disagree with their goals. In most cases, the Islamists are far more violent in the pursuit of their goals, while the left often uses verbal violence and litigation to thwart the will of most Americans.
On the one hand, leftists are antagonistic toward moderate to conservative American principles, as they seek to impose judicially mandated secularism on America and the world. On the other hand, Muslim extremists are anti-American because they believe that America is as decadent as the left portrays it. The self-righteous Islamists want to impose their humorless, warped brand of Islam on the world under a religious banner.
D'Souza's argument is far too simplistic. Most Muslim leaders and even some Islamists are well aware that leftist portrayals of America are distorted. However in many Muslim dominant states, the negative facets of our society are dramatized in order to deflect attention away from the glaring problems existent in Muslim societies. Creating external scapegoats is just one of many techniques utilized by tyrants to maintain internal control.
Moreover, many human vices are practiced in Muslim states, but leaders deny this reality and attempt to sweep it under the rug. Indeed, the notion of Western decadence is primarily a smokescreen. I have met several Muslims who hailed from Morocco to Indonesia, and they moved to the West for freedom and opportunity. They weren't obsessed with the decadence factor when they fled from dictatorships. At least in a free society, individuals can choose what type of life they want to live.
D'Souza claims that the war against Islam if being carried out by the cultural left. That seems to ring true until you realize that many folks on the left strive to exclude all religion from the public arena. However, for some strange reason, the left is hesitant to criticize the coercive nature of Islamism. In recent years, it seems as if Islam is under siege primarily from Islamists, who have rejected traditional Islam in favor of carnage and the application of regressive sharia laws.
D'Souza proposes some action plans to battle the cultural left and militant Islamists. He recommends that mainstream Americans band together with traditional Muslims to defeat the anti-liberty agendas of the left and the Islamists. Some collaboration is occurring now, but there is an urgent need for moderate Muslims to carry out more of the heavy lifting to delegitimize Islamism. The author also discusses some commonalities between Islam and the Judeo-Christian faiths, but he tends to gloss over the stark differences among these three heritages.
D'Souza is a lucid optimist on the subject of American society and American virtues. However, he often gets wrapped up in his analysis and loses sight of the big picture. Shakespeare's "Methinks thou doth protest too much," comes to mind regarding the author's fixation on the left, and his exaggeration of its influence. Why do I say this?
Well, for several decades terrorists have plotted and executed treacherous attacks against other Muslims and Western interests for a variety of convoluted lame excuses. The attacks have just gotten larger over time. Indeed, what could be more decadent than a terrorist who intentionally slaughters large numbers of innocent civilians? What could be more decadent than a state that finances, and/or plans heinous terror attacks?
Finally, D'Souza makes a gallant effort to articulate the leftist agenda, and he attempts to decode the motivations of militant Islamists. He also emphasizes the importance of winning the information war with facts instead of hysteria and disinformation. This book is a fairly good read for those who want to examine some of the stakes involved in the culture war. It is also important to comprehend opposing worldviews involved in the fight for the future of civilization.
Author: Dinesh D'Souza
Info: Doubleday (2007) 333 pages $26.95
Dinesh D'Souza, a former Hoover Institution Fellow at Stanford, has written a dozen books on conservatism. Some of these include: "Illiberal Education," "The Virtue Of Prosperity," What's So Great About America," "Letters To A Young Conservative," "What's So Great About Christianity," and so on. He spent a number of years preparing a treatise about the root causes of 9/11, and came up with "The Enemy At Home (The Cultural Left And Its Responsibility for 9/11)."
Several books have been written about events leading up to 9/11, the infamous day itself, and the horrific aftermath. Some plausible reasons for 9/11 (such as failure to connect the intelligence dots) have emerged from across the political spectrum, along with a slew of conspiracy theories. In his book, D'Souza offers a two-pronged thesis to explain the 9/11 atrocity, and shares some strategies on how to prevent future strikes. His main point is: "In order to crush the Islamic radicals abroad, we must defeat the enemy at home."
In his first premise, the author notes that the cultural left in America should shoulder much of the blame for 9/11. He claims that the moral relativism exported by leftist academics, activists, Hollywood, the mainstream media, and liberal politicians, has angered many Muslims. He asserts that hedonistic values add fuel to the fire of existing resentments held by radical Muslims toward Western society.
However, D'Souza forgot to mention the legitimate anger that Americans have regarding the Saudi sponsorship of militant Wahhabi media outlets, mosques, and schools in the West. These organizations teach hate and an intolerant brand of fanatic Islamism.
D'Souza contends that if the secular left had kept its decadent lifestyle at home and refrained from exporting its cultural imperialism, it's likely that 9/11 would not have occurred. He points out that from the Muslim perspective, the 9/11 attacks weren't caused by American foreign policies, American prosperity, or the fact that Americans cherish democracy and liberty.
It appears that the author gives the left too much credit for helping to generate this diabolical holocaust. D'Souza fails to delve into the possibility that even if there were a marginalized left in America, or even no leftist movement at all, OBL could have manufactured grievances to justify al-Qaeda's cowardly onslaught. Terrorists appear to be just as plugged in to the grievance industry apparatus as are folks around the globe who are too immature to develop personal responsibility.
Obviously, D'Souza also pins the blame for 9/11 on al-Qaeda terrorists. He notes that Islamists began to attack Western targets after they realized that they couldn't conquer an Islamic state. The lone exception for this rule is the Islamic Republic of Iran, which the Shia mullahs have ruled with an iron fist since 1979.
The author is convinced that in a peculiar way the cultural left has an ideological alliance with fascist Islamists regarding ultimate goals. Apparently, leftists and Islamists want freedom and power for themselves, but want to deny freedom to folks that disagree with their goals. In most cases, the Islamists are far more violent in the pursuit of their goals, while the left often uses verbal violence and litigation to thwart the will of most Americans.
On the one hand, leftists are antagonistic toward moderate to conservative American principles, as they seek to impose judicially mandated secularism on America and the world. On the other hand, Muslim extremists are anti-American because they believe that America is as decadent as the left portrays it. The self-righteous Islamists want to impose their humorless, warped brand of Islam on the world under a religious banner.
D'Souza's argument is far too simplistic. Most Muslim leaders and even some Islamists are well aware that leftist portrayals of America are distorted. However in many Muslim dominant states, the negative facets of our society are dramatized in order to deflect attention away from the glaring problems existent in Muslim societies. Creating external scapegoats is just one of many techniques utilized by tyrants to maintain internal control.
Moreover, many human vices are practiced in Muslim states, but leaders deny this reality and attempt to sweep it under the rug. Indeed, the notion of Western decadence is primarily a smokescreen. I have met several Muslims who hailed from Morocco to Indonesia, and they moved to the West for freedom and opportunity. They weren't obsessed with the decadence factor when they fled from dictatorships. At least in a free society, individuals can choose what type of life they want to live.
D'Souza claims that the war against Islam if being carried out by the cultural left. That seems to ring true until you realize that many folks on the left strive to exclude all religion from the public arena. However, for some strange reason, the left is hesitant to criticize the coercive nature of Islamism. In recent years, it seems as if Islam is under siege primarily from Islamists, who have rejected traditional Islam in favor of carnage and the application of regressive sharia laws.
D'Souza proposes some action plans to battle the cultural left and militant Islamists. He recommends that mainstream Americans band together with traditional Muslims to defeat the anti-liberty agendas of the left and the Islamists. Some collaboration is occurring now, but there is an urgent need for moderate Muslims to carry out more of the heavy lifting to delegitimize Islamism. The author also discusses some commonalities between Islam and the Judeo-Christian faiths, but he tends to gloss over the stark differences among these three heritages.
D'Souza is a lucid optimist on the subject of American society and American virtues. However, he often gets wrapped up in his analysis and loses sight of the big picture. Shakespeare's "Methinks thou doth protest too much," comes to mind regarding the author's fixation on the left, and his exaggeration of its influence. Why do I say this?
Well, for several decades terrorists have plotted and executed treacherous attacks against other Muslims and Western interests for a variety of convoluted lame excuses. The attacks have just gotten larger over time. Indeed, what could be more decadent than a terrorist who intentionally slaughters large numbers of innocent civilians? What could be more decadent than a state that finances, and/or plans heinous terror attacks?
Finally, D'Souza makes a gallant effort to articulate the leftist agenda, and he attempts to decode the motivations of militant Islamists. He also emphasizes the importance of winning the information war with facts instead of hysteria and disinformation. This book is a fairly good read for those who want to examine some of the stakes involved in the culture war. It is also important to comprehend opposing worldviews involved in the fight for the future of civilization.
CATEGORY:
FEATURE
The 'Clinton' loans were done long before this mess & would have had a significant impact long ago...
Excellent review and quite timely – I had the book in my “to read list” when this headline caught my eye.
Not sure if you are being fair in your compare and contrast. For example
You state that
“In his first premise, the author notes that the cultural left in America should shoulder much of the blame for 9/11. He claims that the moral relativism exported by leftist academics, activists, Hollywood, the mainstream media, and liberal politicians, has angered many Muslims. He asserts that hedonistic values add fuel to the fire of existing resentments held by radical Muslims toward Western society”
However, D'Souza forgot to mention the legitimate anger that Americans have regarding the Saudi sponsorship of militant Wahhabi media outlets, mosques, and schools in the West. These organizations teach hate and an intolerant brand of fanatic Islamism.
The however reads like a vacuous alternative – no?