The Enemy at Home: The Curtural Left and it's Responsibility for 9/11

The "liberal solution" to America's conflict with the Islamic world, Dinesh D'Souza argues, is doomed from the outset because it imagines that American political values may be absolutely abstracted from its cultural values. Most Americans, according to D'Souza, have cultural beliefs that give them much more in common with the "family values" of Islamic culture, than that of the cultural Left. The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 by Dinesh D'Souza published by Broadway (February 12, 2008) Ppbk., 384 pgs. ISBN-10: 0767915615 ISBN-13: 978-0767915618

In his 2008 book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11, Dinish D'Souza argues forcefully that America is perceived from abroad, not for the abstract promise associated with democracy, but through its aggressive cultural imperialism. Since the 1960s conservatives and traditional liberals have naively believed that America's reputation is associated with the outcome of its political process. This, D'Souza argues, is delusional. Since the 1960s, power in American society has been increasingly exercised by forces unregulated by the political process: the courts and the media. In these areas, the cultural Left has eviscerated conservatives, advancing "an agenda of libertine and elitist policies" (concealed in the rhetoric of "human rights" or "individual rights") which have engendered fear and anger towards America in much of the non-European world. Conservatives must realize, D'Souza argues, that their greatest opponent in the modern world is not, for example, Islamic culture (with which it has much in common): it lies with the cultural Left, whose unrelenting, savage attacks on the cultural institution of the family has fueled much of the world's animosity.

D'Souza's claim that culture plays an increasingly greater role in American life than politics and even international relations is hardly new. Francis Fukuyama, in his influential The End of History and the Last Man, argued that with the demise of Soviet communism, significant political differences between nations came to an end. Liberal democracy, proving triumphant, became the only political alternative. This would not mean, however, that conflicts between nation states would cease to exist. In his equally influential The Clash of Civilizations, Samuel Huntington took Fukuyama's thesis a step further. Huntington argued that conflicts in the 21st century would be characterized increasingly by cultural disputes rather than political ones. In contemporary academia, an entire subgenre of the humanities, known as historicism, is premised on the notion that the exercise of power is never confined to what is traditionally thought to be politics. Power is a "microphysics," a constituent part of everyday life.

What is the nature of this "left culture" which, D'Souza believes, has so inflamed the Islamic world? D'Souza's answer is unsurprising to conservatives: "The Bohemian culture of the 1960s." And while D'Souza associates "Bohemian culture" with the usual sexual excesses, he also means something specific by it: As the basis of "liberal morality, Bohemian culture is premised on the belief that right and wrong reside not in some eternal order but within the inner reaches of our own heart." This "ethic of individual autonomy" pits the Left against communitarian values, the nuclear family, and those places where the state has adopted cultural values as its own (such as the heterosexual family unit). For this reason the cultural Left is feverishly obsessed with issues such as contraception, abortion, the right to bear children out of wedlock, or the rights of children against corporal punishment. The cultural Left opposes any legislative effort that might enhance the authority of the family.

D'Souza's main point appears to be a simple one — even a nasty one: while the Left remains committed to a very specific, sexually libertine agenda, it is rarely explicit about this. Instead, it conceals its objectives in grandiose and misleading terms such as "freedom of speech." For example, D'Souza cites the ACLU's defense of Larry Flint. But while the ACLU couched their defense of Flint in the language of "freedom of speech," in fact their defense could hardly be distinguished from the right to "exploit women for the sexual gratification of men." The slogan of "diversity," too, is frequently deployed by liberals, less to defend minority cultures (which often find themselves at odds with libertine liberal morality), but as a guise for advancing some ulterior agenda (usually sexual license, criticism of which is equated with racism). "Conservatives uphold the law in order to preserve their cultural values, the leftist does the same thing — only his or her values are radically different," D'Souza argues. This duplicity is because the cultural Left is "blind to the moral concerns of traditional people . . . [They have no] concern for childhood innocence and modesty, because [they] do not share the traditional view of right or wrong."

D'Souza's willingness to attack the motives of the cultural Left might easily be seen as a sort of "Jacobinism." The abstract language of politics is usually a way in which disputes between groups and individuals avoid making conflict "personal." Unfortunately, as D'Souza implies, after 9/11 Americans can no longer avoid talking about the cultural effects of its political rhetoric.

Globalization, the internet, television and America's economic clout conspire to make America's cultural affairs world affairs — whether other nations wish for this or not. And pretending that defending the sexual exploitation of women may be rationalized (or even morally justified) under the political ideal of "free speech" is a distinction America's enemies don't bother to make. The hostility the ayatollahs and Bin Laden have towards the West has little to do with democracy — as the cultural Left patronizingly insists. It has to do with America's exporting of libertine values.

The cultural Left has been assiduous in using the federal courts and the media to impose its beliefs on Americans. However, it has been equally effective in wresting control of international institutions such as the UN or Planned Parenthood in order to advance its agenda worldwide. Here, the cultural Left's international strategy has been the same as at home. While domestically, the Left concealed its libertine agenda under the guise of "freedom of speech" or "individual rights," internationally, the Left concealed its efforts under the slogan "human rights." Both are euphemisms, of course, rhetorical justifications for imposing the Left's western prejudices without subjecting them to public scrutiny. It is ironic, D'Souza writes, that "the Left is accusing President Bush of "imperialism," when it is precisely its values which most Muslims find most offensive."

Part of the reason the Islamic world is quick to equate America (and its political system) with the excesses of American popular culture is that the Western distinction between public and private doesn't exist elsewhere. Islamic states, D'Souza argues, "do not accept the public/secular vs. private distinction common to American and European countries." Since America's presence in these countries is mainly from television, "the average Muslim living in Saudi Arabia or Indonesia, when he or she thinks of America, thinks of sleazy talk shows hosted by the likes of Jerry Springer, Geraldo Rivera or Maury Popovich."

Moreover, religion, the foundation of Islamic societies, is constantly subject to ridicule in the American media. Whatever the American constitution may say about religion, in American popular culture religious values are routinely ridiculed. In American movies. . .1

. . . prudish characters are ridiculed and subject to jokes. Homosexuals are always presented as good looking and charming and adultery is glorified. Prostitutes are always portrayed more favorably and decently than anyone who criticizes them. Small towns are the preferred venue for evil and scary occurrences, and country pastors are usually portrayed as vicious, hypocritical , sexually repressed and corrupt . . . Religion is simply not a feature in the lives of movie and television characters. Lots of film and TV characters have premarital sex, but very rarely does anyone contract a sexually transmitted disease. "Prudes" are always the subject of jokes and ridicule . . .

Where are the "moral standards," D'Souza asks, in American popular culture? As the Muslims allege, D'Souza writes, there are none.

The "liberal solution" to America's conflict with the Islamic world, D'Souza argues, is doomed from the outset because it imagines that American political values may be absolutely abstracted from its cultural values. In this way the cultural Left's vision of the world betrays a cultural chauvinism which blinds it to why it is hated. Washington Senator Patty Murray, for instance, declared that Bin Laden's popularity came from his contributions to "building programs." Murray first conveniently attributes Muslim affection for Bin Laden as having nothing to do with what he or they actually say (endless denunciations of western decadence). She then attributes to Bin Laden and those who follow him motives which resemble her own. By providing Muslims with certain public projects, Murray turns Bin Laden into "a sort of private form of tax relief." Murray implicitly denies that the values she stands for are in fact the real threat to the Islamic world.

Murray, when forced to provide an explanation for Muslim hatred of America, must argue that it comes from simple ignorance of value-free-democracy. D'Souza responds sharply: "The problems the Islamic world has with America today are not from 'ignorance' of democracy.2 The problems come from 'too much familiarity' with America's culture." There is indeed a crusade against the Muslim world — it is a modern day crusade of liberal values being forced upon Muslims. The "liberal solution" to the West's conflict with the Islamic world is guaranteed to enrage Muslims further. The "export of democracy" will be unsuccessful if "democracy" continues to mean the forceful imposition of "Hollywood values" on "liberated" countries.

The most interesting part of D'Souza's book is his conclusion. Most Americans, he argues, have cultural beliefs that give them much more in common with the "family values" of Islamic culture, than that of the cultural Left. In fact, the cultural Left and radical Islam have a great deal in common: namely, that they loathe American society and wish for its destruction. To regain the trust of the rest of the world, Americans and American conservatives in particular, need to reaffirm their own cultural values, which link them to the international community.

American conservatives have too hastily cut themselves off from the international community by naively insisting on the idea of "One America," or even "common western heritage." Americans — and particularly conservatives — have dangerously sought to contextualize the extremist views of the cultural Left under the thin guise of a common political rhetoric.3 They have failed miserably, D'Souza says, and in the process have absorbed the hatred that should be directed at the cultural Left.4

D'Souza concludes by outlining his solution to the West's confrontation with the Islamic world. First, it needs to identify the proper enemy, which is not the conservative Muslim world, but the cultural Left. It should "stop this ridiculous preening as the champions of secularism" and should "prevent the cultural Left from exporting bogus rights and cultural debauchery." This means, "giving up on leftists in America and Europe who will never join our side." Conservatives must "find common cause with the traditional Muslims who share many of our values and can help us defeat radical Islam." Given America's failure to find a military solution to its "Islamic problem," these traditional Muslims are the "only ones who can help us find a solution to Islamic radicalism."

At face value, D'Souza's book purports to prove that the cultural Left somehow inspired the Jihadist attack on America on 9/11. In this it fails. D'Souza offers no believable causal evidence that American popular culture was the inspiration for the 19 lunatics who flew two planes into the Twin Towers. In fact, D'Souza doesn't even examine western academic culture, whose simplistic "good vs. bad" attitude towards Islam in the 1990s (generally, Islam is "good" and "oppressed" by "bad" America) has been written about by Martin Kramer in his Ivory Towers in the Sand.5 Bin Laden and the well educated radicals surrounding him were more likely motivated by these ideas than revulsion at what they might have seen on American television.6

There are other reasons The Enemy at Home proves frustrating. First, D'Souza's "cultural Left" is drawn from a rogues gallery that is of almost no influence whatsoever on American politics at home or abroad. While Noam Chomsky has a cult following of sorts among urban yuppies, few outside of academia have ever heard of him. The same is true of Arundhati Roy or Gore Vidal. Eve Ensler's Vagina Monologues perhaps scandalized members of the university, but I seriously doubt it was spicy enough to get a single internet porn-addict to exchange web surfing for images for "textual pleasure." Second, D'Souza's claim that the far Left somehow has a monopoly over extreme individualism is unconvincing: surely Timothy McVeigh and his friends were as unsociable as anyone on the far Left. Individualism is neither left nor right: it's American. Third, the content of American television seems to be enjoyed by red staters nearly as much (if not more than!) as blue staters. Soulless Hollywood is indeed precisely that: it's about making money. And while Left and Right are generally unhappy with what they see, the balance of television programming appeals to the "soulless center," which, in the end, remains the largest paying audience. Finally, D'Souza ignores the "class" perspective which explains what drives much of "decadent culture": Walter Benn Michaels in his The Trouble with Diversity links the American cultural obsession with race and gender to middle class opportunism.

However, for all its weaknesses, D'Souza's book speaks convincingly to contemporary society when he argues that "culture" is not simply what takes place in private space, but is today the driving force in modern American society. It hardly requires proof to assert that more Americans (and non-Americans) are familiar with the heroes of popular culture than the president — and many of those who know about the president know him through pop culture sources. It is simply naive to assume that popular culture — with its values — somehow remains apart from "the political sphere." In any case, it no longer matters. D'Souza argues that America is part of a global community and it ignores the effects its cultural values have on others — even those couched in "freedom of speech" — at its own peril.

D'Souza's speculation on the motivations behind the Left's defense of free speech will no doubt earn him criticism. However, in the new global community where cultural and political values are increasingly blurred together, the genealogy of political discourse can hardly be stuffed back into the old "public/private" bottle. D'Souza only states the obvious when he notes that liberals, while willing to defend pornography under the name of free speech, are nowhere to be found when it comes to defending the equivalent rights for Christians.7 Their selective defense of multiculturalism, generally when it challenges Christianity or furthers the cause of some exotic form of sexuality, can hardly be assumed to be "disinterested." To recognize this is to acknowledge America's place in the world's community. It is to acknowledge that American political intentions can no longer be visited upon the rest of the world without acknowledging America's cultural responsibility.

The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 is available on Amazon.com.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Left's attacks on the family in the Hollywood media are not without foundation. With a divorce rate of fifty percent, one-third of American children living apart from their biological father, 30 million abortions annually, and most women unable to be with their children because of the necessity to work, "the very concept of the family no longer really exists in the West."

2. D'Souza points out that Islamacists have no problem with democracy — in Algeria and among the Palestinians, religious extremists fully supported democracy as a means of taking power!

3. Another way this comes about is when conservatives insist that liberals are simply "naive" about the danger of Islamic terrorism — needing to be "more fully educated." This is a way of saying that liberals "really would be conservatives" if they were just smarter. This both denies liberals the right to actually believe in what they claim they do — and rationalizes their attacks on the family by insisting that it is really a "misguided application of ratinoal political language." Leftists such as Richard Falk or the New York Times, D'Souza argues, had no problem defending the Ayatollah against the Shah of Iran. Likewise, you never hear the Left clamoring for democracy in Iran or Syria. The reason is because their motivation is to oppose Bush . . .

4. Today, the "One America" rhetoric prevents Americans from even diagnosing the roots of Islamic hostility correctly. What offended Muslim men from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal (prisons in the Islamic world are notorious), D'Souza argued, was the sight of Muslim men being humiliated by American women. However, nothing was written about this in the New York Times, which cloaked the incident in the rhetoric of "human rights abuse." Even George Bush went along with this.

5. Martin Kramer, Ivory Towers in the Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America (Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2001).

6. Several of the hijackers reportedly visited prostitutes before commencing with the attack on the Trade Towers.

Agree.

While al gore & fellow left wing radicals may not have been directly responsible for 911 they certainly have not helped on the War on Terror.

Al Gore was a big supporter of BO.

The following is a Radio Interview that I arranged for Dr. Orly Taitz with Matthew Hill at the NRB Convention in Nashville on 2/10/09

http://www.irnusanews.com/our-programs/matthew-hill-show

JANUARY 2004:by Daniel Pipes

Howard Dean, replying to a question that if bin Laden should be caught, whether to put him to death: “I’ve resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials.” (Some days later, under criticism, Dr. Dean shifted his position, saying “as an American I want to see he gets what he deserves, which is the death penalty.”)

Richard Gephardt: “I never felt it was inevitable that we had to go to war.”

John Kerry: President George W. Bush wrongly “rushed into battle.”

George Soros: “the war on terrorism cannot be won by waging war. … Crime requires police work, not military action.”

William Sloan Coffin: After 9/11, the U.S. government should have vowed “to see justice done, but by the force of law only, never by the law of force.”

..........................................

For years, legal investigators pursued information that their colleagues in the intelligence agencies already had. It was like “having your best football players sitting on the bench when you are having your butts beat,” notes Barry Carmody, an FBI agent who worked on the Sami Al-Arian terrorism case. Then the Patriot Act was passed and “Everything changed.”

“Holy moley! There’s a lot there!” was how another FBI agent, Joe Navarro, characterized the flood of new information in the Al-Arian case. He described getting hold of it as “one of those awesome moments.”

It was President Bush’s seminal insight, the wisdom of which I would say is attested by the fact that it looks so obvious in retrospect.

Obvious for a while, yes. Now, key Democrats repudiate this insight and insist on a return to the pre-9 /11 dispensation.

Doing so would amount to a momentous step backwards, however. This new kind of war involves criminality, to be sure, but it still is war. To unlearn the painful lesson of September 11 is a good way to lose that war.

The Curtural Left and it’s Responsibility for 9/11

It’s MUCH easier than that. When terrorists sponsored by a Middle Eastern country attacked the United States during the Clinton years in office, Clinton did what the Democrats do now, he lied but he lied in a bigger way than you can imagine. You probably reject this as ridiculous as our news media would have told us the truth but spend a couple of minutes on this page and you’ll see the facts don’t support a competent media to keep a corrupt government in check.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/12/02/mcveigh/

You probably still have NO CLUE WHY Sandy Berger was stuffing TOP SECRET SPECIAL CATEGORY Doucments into his underwear while preparing for the 9/11 hearings but this is a piece of the puzzle.

And the biggest piece of the biggest mystery in American History is right out in the open and you’ll reject it because it couldn’t be THIS SIMPLE, the most investigated event in history, thousands of books and there’s a MAJOR PIECE of evidence that’s NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED? That’s silly you’ll conclude and you’ll move on. Those guys doing the lying laugh at YOU every day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8_kIDP4EQ0

But you’ll be wrong about Clinton’s handling of terrorist attacks during his administration and you’ll be wrong about the biggest mystery in history. BIG BROTHER HAS YOU TRAINED and you will NOT think unless they give you the green light. You reject the most obvious REASON for lies, they are not going to tell you the truth, something about national security and you knowing the truth.

“Witnesses who say they saw a man with McVeigh right before the attack were confused,” this is how they do it.

"The only way America will ever be defeated by death-worshipping theocrats who've crawled out from under a Dark Ages rock is with the help of the mullahs' fifth column - academia, the media, the judiciary, public education, Hollywood and the Democratic Party.
Of the two suicide cults America confronts, liberalism is by far the more lethal."

-- Don Feder, In The War On Terror, Liberals Are More Dangerous Than Muslims -- A 9/11 meditation, September 19, 2006

It's disappointing to see that the commentators on this thread don't get the thesis of the article.

It is not the political aspects of the left that are the most dangerous; it is the cultural undermining of traditional values which has made America the enemy in the eyes of much of the world.

Anyone who has lived overseas in the last few decades has seen the depraved face that America presents to the world through the products of Hollywood and the advocacy of celebrities who are inflamed with leftist cultural values.

I have written about this on FR and have been pooh-poohed, but this writer is on the mark.

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.