[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.

[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.

[RadioAstronomer]

I would contend that returning America to a 1950s morality

No thanks.

[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.