Equals less of these:
Posted on 01/28/2007 1:11:04 PM PST by blitzgig
As a conservative author, I'm used to a little controversy. Even so, the reaction to my new book, "The Enemy at Home," has felt, well, a little hysterical.
"Ratfink writes new book," James Wolcott, cultural critic for Vanity Fair, declares in his blog. He goes on to call my book a "sleazy, shameless, ignorant, ahistorical, tendentious, meretricious lie."
In the pages of Esquire, Mark Warren charges that I "hate America" and have "taken to heart" Osama bin Laden's view of the United States. (Warren also challenged me to a fight and threatened to put me in the hospital.) In his New York Times review of my book last week, Alan Wolfe calls my work "a national disgrace . . . either self-delusional or dishonest." I am "a childish thinker" with "no sense of shame," he argues. "D'Souza writes like a lover spurned; despite all his efforts to reach out to Bin Laden, the man insists on joining forces with the Satanists."
-snip-
Why the onslaught? Just this: In my book, published this month, I argue that the American left bears a measure of responsibility for the volcano of anger from the Muslim world that produced the 9/11 attacks. President Jimmy Carter's withdrawal of support for the shah of Iran, for example, helped Ayatollah Khomeini's regime come to power in Iran, thus giving radical Islamists control of a major state; and President Bill Clinton's failure to respond to Islamic attacks confirmed bin Laden's perceptions of U.S. weakness and emboldened him to strike on 9/11. I also argue that the policies that U.S. "progressives" promote around the world -- including abortion rights, contraception for teenagers and gay rights -- are viewed as an assault on traditional values by many cultures, and have contributed to the blowback of Islamic rage.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I knew James Wolcott (Vanity Fair) years ago when he was the tv critic for the Village Voice. He was pretty conservative then and always fighting the mean-spirited articles in the Voice. But he was always a careerist. He's gone from being a disciple of Norman Mailer & Pauline Kael to being the complete toady to the out-of-control Grayden Carter. But some of us remember Wolcott when.
The rantings of the left will help sell more copies, proof again that liberals can always be counted on to bring attention to those things they want ignored.
That's a very good point. What D'Souza is saying is that we are demanding changes in traditional Muslim culture. D'Souza points out that they resent it, and I think correctly that it's what motivates the fighting. I haven't finished his book yet, so forgive me if this turns out to be off-base, but I think that a lot of critics have interpreted his explanation of Muslim resentment as a defense of it.
In short, the Muslim radicals are afraid that we'll win the fight without a shot and hence have started shooting; that unless they turn the world to Shari'a we will ineluctably turn it to both the good parts of Western culture and the bad. It's only on our side of the fence that we differentiate the good from the bad - as I tried to say above, we social conservatives tend to promote the emancipation of women and divorce it from the promotion of abortion. In our eyes the two issues aren't the same. In the eyes of the Muslims they are. And in the eyes of many on the Left they are as well. That's just my guess at explaining what you've pointed out.
What a shocker ... A writer at the NYT having another hizzy fight
Equals less of these:
This is manifestly and undeniably true. Yet it's unsettling, not just to leftist "progressives," but to those who claim that the Islamic radicals hate us because we espouse Freedom and Democracy. That's why reaction to D'Souza's book has been negative even on this forum.
. . .and I think this is the controversy. . .The Left is howling; albeit only for purposes of creating a 'smoke and mirrors' kind of environment for D'Souza's book. Offering their provoked response on behalf of an 'America slighted'; when. . .should one be so inclined to read the book; after hearing the howls; realizes immediately 'who' is 'the' enemy he references.
. . .and they just do not want anybody recognizing; much less debating D'Souza's presentation of the dirty truth; or more specifically for the Left, the dirty truth of their contribution to 9/11.
There is nothing really new in D'Souza's book; at least premise-wise; for sure. But, political correctness has prevented many from 'overtly'; directly. . .going there.
From Introduction/excerpt:(paragraphs/italics mine):
'The Enemy At Home':
[The Bush Administration and the conservatives must stop uncritically promoting American popular culture, because it is producing a blowback of Muslim rage. . . .American foreign policy should stand up for liberal values; but not for the liberal values associatied with the cultural left. Rather it must work to promote classical liberal ideas (. . . .)
There are also healthy aspects of American culture that we can be proud to share with the rest of the world. But we must stop exporting the cultural left's America.
That means we should stop insisting on radical secularism, stop promoting the feminist conception of the family, stop trying to promote abortion and "sex education," and we should try to halt the export of the vulgar and corrupting elements of our popular culture.
When we cannot do these things, we should apologize to the rest of the world and make it clear that we too find a good deal in this culture to be embarassing and disgusting.
There is no "clash of civilizations"between Islam and the West. But there are two clashes of civilizations that are shaping the world today.
The first is a clash between liberal and conservative values within America. The second is a clash between traditional Islam and radical Islam, a clash within Islamic society. So realize it or not, American conservatives are fighting a two-front war.
The first is a war against Islamic radicalism and fundamentalism. The second is a political struggle against the left and its pernicious political and moral influence in America and around the globe. My conclusion is that the two wars are intimately connected. In fact, we cannot win the first war without also winning the second war.] end excerpt. . .
...while he ignores more relevant criticism from the right. D'Souza seems to feel that if the existence of homosexuality in the US or the appeal of American music to Middle Eastern youth is what "enrages" the mullahs, this is something we should apologize for. On the contrary: if these things are true, we should sweep in and wipe Wahhabism off the face of the Earth with exactly the same techniques we used on Nazism. Sorry, but if a foreign religion really does insist on imposing its laws in the streets of Manchester and Minneapolis, then it has no reason to live. If D'Souza really does love America, he should realize this.
"For crying out loud,the Shah was dieing of cancer and Carter fought to have him banned from entering the US for medical treatment. "
Carter, the great humanitarian. (/sarc)
Personally, I wish you were in charge. ;*)
Thank you for the ping, Jaz! Very good!!!
BTTT
I lived overseas during the 1980s and saw the embarrassing offerings that American television provided to the world. All those night time soap operas led people to believe American women were like Joan Collins.
It has only gotten worse since the advent of cable and satellite pump out pornography, and the internet provides the same.
It is the Leftists and their Hollywood funders who have advocated for this; there was a time when our traditional classical liberal values were admired even in the Muslim world. Polls taken in the 1950s gave evidence of this. We were admired, not hated.
What you said.
Dinesh D'Souza hasn't just been bashed by the left for this book, but by many on the right. He's gotten beaten up by Alan Wolfe in the NYT and the America-loathing Katha Pollitt at The Nation, to be sure, but he's also been trashed in Frontpage Mag (by a reviewer I don't know, and by Jamie Glazov), on Powerline (by Scott Johnson) and Hugh Hewitt's blog (by contributor Dean Barnett).
Those are not rabid sites who attack people just to see the blood, but mainstream and reasonable conservative commentators. They have read Dinesh's book.... and after reading their reviews, I'll give it a miss.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26572
and
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26584
and
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/4358f1f6-2a20-42a9-ba23-bda2d69af0ef
and
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016556.php
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 19F
Like your tagline. Gee, if I thought the Dink would really do it, I'd cheerfully vote for Rudy.
But I fear he would be no more willing to expatriate himself than Alec Baldwin was after the last election.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
I thought 'liberals' were vehement that we should you seek to understand the 'root causes' of terrorism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.