I Heart Stephen Colbert
I've wanted to write about Dinesh D'Souza's new book for some time (I haven't read it by the way) but wasn't sure how I should approach it. The book, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, argues that because Muslims only see American popular culture, which he asserts is the opposite of tradtional values, they become uncomfortable and angered and this leads to radicalism. Therefore, we must promote traditional values to show the "real" America is not hostile to more traditional Muslims.
I'm sure you can see why I've wanted to write about this.
Now, let's be clear: D'Souza is not only suggesting that we accomodate the sensitivities of terrorists, but that "real" Americans share the same sensitivities. Isn't that precisely the opposite of what we've been hearing from our glorious leader, his party sycophants and their media lapdogs since 9/11? Whatever happened to "they hate our freedoms?" Remember that one? D'Souza's argument is rather different.
Or is it?
Pardon my use of that cliche, but I think there is something very significant about this book and the fact that it is at odds with "conservative" policy towards terrorism heretofore. Underlying respectable conservatism--which includes conservatives I have excoriated here repeatedly--lies a dark current of eliminationist conservatism that cannot coexist with what it perceives as "liberal America." Respectable conservatism generally plays by the rules. Of course there is mudslinging, lying and the usual distortions of reality, but there isn't a militant attitude that advocates simply removing the competition by any means necessary. What is significant is that I think the respectable conservatives are beginning to be overrun by the the eliminationist variety. Worse, the line is becoming blurred between the two. I recently referred to Glenn Beck as a "professional racist," which I think he is. But he is mainstream by virtue of his presence on CNN and, more recently, ABC's Good Morning America. D'Souza, by virtue of his long-time affiliation with--and financial support of--the Hoover Institution at Stanford, gives academic gilding to a book that essentially argues for marginalizing, if not outright eliminating, liberal America.
D'Souza was on the Colbert Report last night. You can watch the video at the Comedy Central website. What makes Colbert such a brilliant political commentator is that he is able--like Sacha Baron Cohen's Borat--to induce his interview subjects to say plainly things that are rather unbelievable. Colbert essentially got D'Souza to admit that "real Americans", not "liberal America" share the same values as terrorists. Such a belief is absurd. Americans (forget this blue-state, red-state, liberal-conservative, real-fake bullshit for a moment) don't share the values of terrorists. Do some Americans? Of course. There is nothing surprising here. As was obvious to me from the beginning of the "war on terror," the conflict was between fundamentalism and progess. If you believe the modern world is decadent and you are sufficiently radicalized, then terrorism becomes a tool for you to lash out at the modern world. That rule applies to everyone, everywhere. Remember the Unibomber? Timothy McVeigh? Those people are no different from Osama bin Laden. They cannot deal with modernity, and they think their governments and institutions have betrayed them. The religious aspects fill out the picture for them, rather than being the impetus. And thankfully, these people are a minority. But D'Souza is claiming that a plurality of Americans--the Left--are radicalizing Islamic terrorists. And he thinks we should placate them. I know I'm not some important conservative think tank intellectual, but I think it's more than obvious that D'Souza is wrong and America's values are forward-looking and progressive, not reactionary, regressive and terrified of change.
UPDATE: It occurs to me D'Souza's argument further falls apart when you consider that he targets Muslims and their would-be propensity towards terrorism. If, as D'Souza claims, there are shared traditional values between the three great monotheistic tradtions, then wouldn't "liberal America" be inciting the same radicalism here in the United States? Or what about D'Souza's native India? They have, by anybody's measure, a pretty traditional social system (caste system, anyone?). Why aren't more terrorists being spawned there? I suppose D'Souza would counter that America's foreign policy towards the Middle East would be the difference. Gee, you think? The problem is that D'Souza, like popular conservative writers such as the vile Ann Coulter, selectively scan American history and only find fault with Democrats. Yep, all America's problems come from FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter and Clinton. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and both Bushes never made a mistake. (D'Souza even throws in the old "FDR betrayed Eastern Europe at Yalta" argument in the Colbert interview.) I suggest reading this article from Harpers last year called "Stabbed in the Back." Tells you all you need to know about paranoid conservatism in American history. Hell, while you're at it, read Richard Hofstadter's "The Paranoid Style in American Politcs." Things haven't changed one bit.