Our Provocateurs--Dinesh D’Souza Takes Place among the Serial Blame Artists [Victor Davis Hanson]

VDH Private Papers ^ | February 13, 2007 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Nicholas Conradin]

After 9/11, many leftists cited American faults that supposedly accounted for Osama bin Laden's savage attack.

--snip--

But there were also those on the right who argued that the jihadists' furor was payback for our own sins.

--snip--

Evocation of 9/11 can also energize an otherwise moribund political agenda. And blaming us rather than jihadists offers the easy — but false — option of winning the war by just making changes at home, rather than doing the hard work of defeating Islamists abroad.

--snip--

[Nicholas Conradin]

ping

[Alia]

VDH makes his point very well. But then, so does Dinesh.

VDH's point is along the lines of: does a provocatively dressed woman walking in a back street alley of the city "signal she wants to be raped" versus Dinesh's "a provocatively dressed woman walking in a back street alley of the city makes herself vulnerable as a target for rapists".

Each side has merit for discussion.

Every time the Democrats open their mouths in their usual anti-WOT style, the terrorists in Iraq figure it a sign for them to surge their murdering.

So, do words and laws have conseqences?

They shouldn't (as words do not equal rape) but they do.

Our enemy is clearly Islamofascists, and in a time of war, the Dems are making themselves out to be facilitators of and for our enemies, effectively acting as pimps for our enemy; but yetwhile asserting "it's not their fault".

What might help is if our Democrats were smart and intelligent and understood and give two sheets. But they don't. They sit in soiled diapers whining that their words are being taken "out of context" by the enemy.

Oh, that'll work.

[Sherman Logan]

blaming us rather than jihadists offers the easy — but false — option of winning the war by just making changes at home, rather than doing the hard work of defeating Islamists abroad.

Without commenting on its desirability, I would contend that returning America to a 1950s morality is a much harder task than defeating Islam.

Which is really the point. If we say the only way to do anything is to do something that is impossible, it removes the obligation to do something that is possible.

[MBB1984]

The real reason for the terrorist attacks is our support for Israel. The jihadists despise Israel and will seek to attack and destroy all who support her. Freedom, democracy decadence, etc. are all minor issues and that unfortunately get more press.

[mek1959]

Wow, I'm a bit stunned by Hanson's take on this book. Maybe he just read it a little different than I did. My take on what D'Souza is saying is that there are more similarities between the "traditional" cultures than there are between Conservatives and the left in the country - staring with the belief in transcendent truth/values. It seems to me that it's impossible to argue that the left has any similarity with conservative values (abortion, homosexual marriages, divorce rates, taxation, etc). The left's effort to completely jettison God from the public square, in my view is the salient point of D'Souza's book. I've been taken aback by some of the criticism I've read about this book. To be sure, D'Souza perhaps draws too close a relationship between conservatives and "traditional" Muslims than I'm comforatble with. But to suggest the An Alabama hunter and a Harvard professor, for all their likely political disagreements, share a commitment to the Constitution, freedom of the individual, the equality of women and tolerance of different religions. Head-to-toe burqas and honor killings for most of us are more offensive than rap music or "Brokeback Mountain." as a way to denuder D'Souza's argument is over the top for me. I'm quite sure D'Souza would not endorse "honor killings" as a defining charastic of conservatism. Perhaps there's a greater fissure in conservative thought than I was aware of. Just my thought's.

[Sherman Logan]

"a provocatively dressed woman walking in a back street alley of the city makes herself vulnerable as a target for rapists".

VDH's argument is that it doesn't matter what the woman is wearing. If it isn't a burka, she is "asking for it."

Dinesh's argument is that if a woman dresses sufficiently provocatively, she considerably increases the likelihood that she will be attacked.

As you say, I think there is some truth on each side. But I lean toward VDH.

[Alia]

I concur; but only when we specify the line of argumentation.

Both gentlemen are presenting from slightly different angles.

VDH's argument is that it doesn't matter what the woman is wearing. If it isn't a burka, she is "asking for it."

True.

Dinesh's argument is that if a woman dresses sufficiently provocatively, she considerably increases the likelihood that she will be attacked

And if the Dems have their way with halting funding for the WOT, the US will be attacked again whether or not we are wearing burkas.

VDH argues that no matter what we do, Islamofascists hate us and want us dead.

Dinesh argues that with what the US Dems are on about, this will happen sooner rather than later.

[Physicist]

Without commenting on its desirability, I would contend that returning America to a 1950s morality is a much harder task than defeating Islam.

But what if you could? Would that appease the Islamofascists?

It would not.

Here's an interesting point of history: the Islamic monomania against the United States started with the writings of Sayyid Qutb. He hated the United States and everything it stood for, but particularly he hated its immorality. He learned about it as a student here, 1948-1950.

1950s morality is exactly what caused the Islamists to want to destroy America in the first place.

[Amalie]

In the end, however, I would have to agree with Dinesh's assessment that Left's ideological drag taking society downward is as much of a reason for the hatred expressed by some Muslims as is our military/foreign policy issues. Indeed, they see the immorality in Western culture as just cause for a lot of what they do, thier own political goals notwithstanding.

We in the conservative movement tend to be very patriotic, but there are a lot of things that come out of our culture that I am not proud of (and I am not refering to the military in the least). While radical Islam is a huge and real threat, some of the cultural garbage we export (movies, music, abortion ideals, homosexuality) is also rot, just without weapons. However, finding any common ground for conservatives in the two cultures is still very difficult due to the violence and emotion involved.

Does this mean I agree that the terrorists are justified. Absolutely not. They must be stopped at all costs. However, I agree that we might find that we do have more in common with the outlook of some devout Muslims than we do with hardcore Western leftist ideology Either way, discourse like this is healthy for society.

[Physicist]

However, I agree that we might find that we do have more in common with the outlook of some devout Muslims than we do with hardcore Western leftist ideology

The congruence between hardcore American conservatism and radical Islam is precisely what scares the moderate American mainstream about conservatism in general. Both ideologies view sexual continence, rather than the rights of the individual, as the central pillar of all morality.

It's why conservatives lose elections.

Your statement--accurate, succinct, true, and honest--is not unlikely to spawn a thread of its own on Democratic Underground, where lunatic leftists of every description will take smug satisfaction in seeing their own ideologies justified (in their opinions).

[bkepley]

I think we should have blamed and held to account any and all countries that gave aid and comfort to the terrorists and this goes back to Lebanon and every President including Reagan who did not do what was necessary. Failing to deal with the truth has its reasons of course, including our addiction to oil, but I think we have so far pretty much lost the war because we won't face up to the things that need to be done. Maybe I'm to pessimistic.

[Amalie]

The DU doesn't scare me. The fact we have allowed the left to dictate what should or should not be said is one of the greatest challenges facing our country. If they choose to believe that the ideologies are the same, or that the way of dealing with them is also similar, nothing I say will change that. They are the fascists who will not allow opposing viewpoint to be aired - they cannot even allow dissent in the Congress.

I understand your point, but I am not going to allow their possible response dictate what I say or think. In the end, being honest about conservatism between ourselves will make a difference, not what our opponents chose to hypothesize. Again, I refuse to play ball by their terms; honesty needs to return to the public square - period...

[wildbill]

Why can't we do both? Blame those responsible for failing to adequately respond to Muslim attacks against us as well as carry the fight forward, now that we are in it.

It seems to me that VDH has set up a false choice.

[RadioAstronomer]

I would contend that returning America to a 1950s morality

No thanks.

[Alia]

Excellent commentary, Amalie. I do not forget the words in the early 90s of the Ayatollah Khomeini -- concerning the ugliness and corruption and moral decay coming out of America.

What I continue to keep watch on?

The moral corruption comes out of the liberals vis a vis their lifestyles, promotions, policies. If liberals swatted as harshly in response to the Islamo's as they do to traditional American Christians, this WOT would have been far sooner.

It's the most glaring error and hypocrisy of the American Liberal Left.

U.S. soldiers having served in Afghanistan have taught me a great deal about the 'alleged' homosexual culture in the Ghan. How the locals in Afghanistan view American homosexuality? Disgusting, wrong, and punishable by Saudi Arabian laws.

But yet, the libbies hate the troops and support the "people of the land of Afghanistan". And, the libbies do this because of their perennial wish to enforce gay-laws upon every country of the world through trade and business policies. American Liberals think if they could only nudge what goes on in Afghanistan, quietly, into the open, the world would be a better place.

It's a classic case of American Liberal Imperialism.

[Sherman Logan]

That is essentially what d'Souza proposes in his book.

I don't believe there is nearly as much support for the idea as he seems to think.

[RadioAstronomer]

Cool. Thanks for clarifying. :-)

[steve-b]

Without commenting on its desirability, I would contend that returning America to a 1950s morality is a much harder task than defeating Islam.

Even if it were trivially easy to do and unobjectionable for any other reason, to do so in order to appease Islamic Fundamentalist thuggery (the D'Sousa prescription) would be profoundly dishonorable. By suggesting it as an option, D'Sousa makes Neville Chamberlain look like Leonidas of Sparta.

[steve-b]

My take on what D'Souza is saying is that there are more similarities between the "traditional" cultures than there are between Conservatives and the left in the country

It is precisely the recommendation to take common cause with foreigners against fellow Americans that makes D'Sousa so odious.

I'm quite sure D'Souza would not endorse "honor killings" as a defining charastic of conservatism.

Why not, given his call to appease Islamist cultures so they won't be mad at us any more?