Time to Flush That Think Tank

January 20, 2007

If General JC Christian hasn’t sated your appetite, then by all means pour some coffee and savor the sight of New Republic writer Alan Wolfe delivering a tanker truck full of whupp-ass to Osama Bin D’Souza:

At first Dinesh D’Souza considered him “a dark-eyed fanatic, a gun-toting extremist, a monster who laughs at the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians.” But once he learned how Osama bin Laden was viewed in the Muslim world, D’Souza changed his mind. Now he finds bin Laden to be “a quiet, well-mannered, thoughtful, eloquent and deeply religious person.” Despite being considered a friend of the Palestinians, he “has not launched a single attack against Israel.” We denounce him as a terrorist, but he uses “a different compass to assess America than Americans use to assess him.” Bin Laden killed only 3,000 of us, with “every victim counted, every death mourned, every victim’s family generously compensated.” But look what we did in return: many thousands of Muslims dead in Afghanistan and Iraq, “and few Americans seem distressed over these numbers.”

I never thought a book by D’Souza, the aging enfant terrible of American conservatism, would, like the Stalinist apologetics of the popular front period, contain such a soft spot for radical evil. But in “The Enemy at Home,” D’Souza’s cultural relativism hardly stops with bin Laden. He finds Ayatollah Khomeini still to be “highly regarded for his modest demeanor, frugal lifestyle and soft-spoken manner.” Islamic punishment tends to be harsh — flogging adulterers and that sort of thing — but this, D’Souza says “with only a hint of irony,” simply puts Muslims “in the Old Testament tradition.” Polygamy exists under Islamic law, but the sexual freedom produced by feminism in this country is, at least for men, “even better than polygamy.” And the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statement that the West has a taboo against questioning the existence of the Holocaust, while “pooh-poohed by Western commentators,” was “undoubtedly accurate.” Unlike President Bush, who once said he could not understand how anyone could hate America, D’Souza knows why Islamic radicals attack us. “Painful though it may be to admit,” he admits, “some of what the critics or even enemies say about America and the West . . . may be true.” Susan Sontag never said we brought Sept. 11 on ourselves. Dinesh D’Souza does say it.

Dreadful things happened to America on that day, but, truth be told, D’Souza is not all that upset by them. America is fighting two wars simultaneously, he argues, a war against terror abroad and a culture war at home. We should be using the former, less important, one to fight the latter, really crucial, one. The way to do so is to encourage a split between “radical” Muslims like bin Laden, who engage in jihad, and “traditional” Muslims who are conservative in their political views and deeply devout in their religious practices; understanding the radical Muslims, even being sympathetic to some of their complaints, is the best way to win the support of the traditionalists. We should stand with conservative Muslims in protest against the publication of the Danish cartoons that depicted the Prophet Muhammad rather than rallying to the liberal ideal of free speech. We should drop our alliance with decadent Europe and “should openly ally” with “governments that reflect Muslim interests, not . . . Israeli interests.” And, most important of all, conservative religious believers in America should join forces with conservative religious believers in the Islamic world to combat their common enemy: the cultural left.

The “domestic insurgents” who, in D’Souza’s view, constitute the cultural left want “America to be a shining beacon of global depravity, a kind of Gomorrah on a Hill.” “I intend to name the enemy at home,” D’Souza proclaims, and so he does. Twenty recent members of Congress, including Hillary Rodham Clinton and Ted Kennedy, are on one of his lists, and 17 intellectuals (one dead, one British) are on another, with similar numbers of Hollywood figures, activists, foreign policy experts, cultural leaders and organizations. Some of those he identifies — Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Ward Churchill — might not be surprised to find themselves here. Others — the sociologist Paul Starr, the historian Sean Wilentz, the clergyman Jim Wallis, the philosopher Martha Nussbaum — are less obvious candidates for inclusion. (One person, Thomas Frank, is mentioned on two different lists.) All these people might charge D’Souza with “McCarthyism” for supposedly exposing them, but he accepts the challenge. McCarthy, after all, was “largely right.”

Lest one think that D’Souza exaggerates the danger the cultural left presents to America, he has an ace in the hole to back him up: Osama bin Laden himself. Bin Laden, it seems, has taken pains to identify his natural allies within the United States and regularly engages in “signaling” them through videotapes in “an effort to establish a broader political alliance.” In particular, his fall 2004 tape, generally believed to have helped George W. Bush defeat John F. Kerry, contained a secret message to the cultural left that D’Souza, and D’Souza alone, has decoded. “Whichever state does not encroach upon our security thereby ensures its own,” bin Laden declared. Anyone who thinks bin Laden used the term “state” to mean “country” — common usage in Europe and the Middle East — is wrong. He was actually telling residents of New York and Massachusetts that if they voted for the Democrats, he would refrain from killing them. 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.

D’Souza has fallen on hard times lately. Political correctness and affirmative action — the issues he has addressed in inflammatory ways in the past — no longer inspire the same passion. “The Enemy at Home” is clearly designed to restore his reputation as the man who will say anything to call attention to his views; charging prominent senators and presidential candidates with treason can do that. (One can dismiss D’Souza’s claim that “I am not accusing anyone of treason or even of anti-Americanism” as either self-delusional or dishonest; my guess is the former.) Yet despite all his heated rhetoric, D’Souza’s book is unlikely to make much of a dent. It relies on a distinction between traditional and radical Islam that even he does not take seriously; there are no theological differences between the two camps, he suggests at one point, and even the “few” political differences between them are disappearing. It is filled with factual errors (Milton Himmelfarb, not Irving Kristol, compared the voting behavior of Jews to that of Puerto Ricans; Diana Eck is not a historian, but Thomas Frank, wrongly identified as a political scientist, is). In a line D’Souza will surely wish he had never written, he brags of the “remarkable progress” in Iraq “since Hussein’s removal from power.” Some of the people he elevates to the status of major enemies of the United States — Kristine Holmgren, Robert Jensen, Glenda Gilmore — are (no offense intended) anything but household names.

At one point in “The Enemy at Home,” D’Souza appeals to “decent liberals and Democrats” to join him in rejecting the American left. Although he does not name me as one of them, I sense he is appealing to people like me because I write for The New Republic, a liberal magazine that distances itself from leftism. So let this “decent” liberal make perfectly clear how thoroughly indecent Dinesh D’Souza is. Like his hero Joe McCarthy, he has no sense of shame. He is a childish thinker and writer tackling subjects about which he knows little to make arguments that reek of political extremism. His book is a national disgrace, a sorry example of a publishing culture more concerned with the sensational than the sensible. People on the left, especially those who have been subjects of D’Souza’s previous books, will shrug their shoulders at his latest screed. I look forward to the reaction from decent conservatives and Republicans who will, if they have any sense of honor, distance themselves, quickly and cleanly, from the Rishwain research scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

For most of his career, D’Souza has been too much of a pipsqueak to bother with — his fawning biographies of Jerry Falwell and Ronald Reagan and exercises in Silly-Putty logic like The End of Racism are in-group exercises for other members of the wingnut flock — recycled spin points for believers who are already convinced, self-refuting nonsense for civilians who actually know something about the issues involved.

D’Souza’s biggest cultural moment to date has been giving Bill Maher the opportunity to self-immolate on network television during an adolescent debate on whether the 9/11 bombers were really cowards.As we can now see, Osama Bin D’Souza was earnestly, fatuously serious about that argument, and it appears that his conclusion was that Al-Qaeda is just a more ambitious version of Operation Rescue and other anti-abortion groups — only instead of just harassing women and encouraging the murder of doctors, these guys fly jets into office buildings. Now that’s the kind of ballsiness a conservative can really get behind!

D’Souza’s career as a “writer” and “pundit”serves mainly to demonstrate why the term “conservative think tank” is a misnomer — if he’s any example of what they produce, then these tanks need to be flushed several times and then thoroughly scoured out with Comet.

It’s bothersome to see that D’Souza’s screed has been published by Doubleday, rather than the Regnery sausage factory, which used to be the home base for this kind of looniness. But Gresham’s Law — bad money drives out good money — goes double in the publishing industry. Judith Regan was the first editor to tap into the self-reinforcing, self-promoting nature of wingnuttery by signing up Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to put their names to ghost-written “books,” and publishers like Crown, Random House and Doubleday now see gold in them thar shills. Even the religious publisher Thomas Nelson joined in the fun by making Bay Area head case Michael Savage the center of its own hate-literature imprint.

I’m hoping that this year, wingnut books turn into the news version of the lemming stampede for O.J. Simpson books we saw in the 1990s. Remember how anyone even peripherally connected with the murder trial got a fat publishing contract? And as far as I can tell, the only O.J. tomes that did well were Christopher Darden’s book, because it was first, and Jeffrey Toobin’s The Run of His Life, because it was actually good. The rest of them tanked.

Conservative foundations have a lot of money to burn on bulk-orders of wingnut tomes, which are then recycled as giveaways through the Conservative Book Club, but not even Richard Mellon Scaife has infinite resources. D’Souza’s “argument” is so jaw-droppingly idiotic and offensive that even some wingers are starting to sidle away. Let it be that The Enemy at Home either swirls down the drain in a tide of universal ridicule, or requires the forces of wingnuttia to pay through the nose to get it onto the New York Times besteller list.

Hey, maybe Al-Qaeda can start a book club of its own! If it does, I expect that Dinesh D’Souza, “Rishwain research scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University,” will be its star author.

One Response to “Time to Flush That Think Tank”

  1. Cautious Man Says:

    What qualitative difference is there, between D’Souza’s claim that liberal Americans ultimately caused 9-11, and the spoutings of Ward Churchill? Yet, we constantly have to hear about Ward Churchill, as if he was some important figure instead of a fringe guy.

    Within the past year, D’Souza spoke at Seton Hall University, at the invitation of some conservative political group. I hope that the time is now past, when he’s considered a respectable speaker in our area, where we watched the towers burn and fall, and where some of our friends and neighbors never came home that day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: