To Dinesh:
You write a book and title it "The Enemy At Home" and are surprised at the reaction you got? Are you kidding? What is this with "The Left" and "The Right" anyway. You obviously seem an intelligent person so why be surprised at the reaction when the title of your book demonizes people and your book does more than arbue that the "American left" bears "some" responbility. It basically makes the one sided case that the left is entirely responsible for 9/11. Which doesn't push forward either the debate or a rational appraisal of what the issues are really about. If you didn't intend to divide the country why write the book? There is more than enough "blame" to go around for 9/11 and there have been enough books demonizing the left for America's woes to justify some fear. Just read anything by that lightweight Ann Coulter.
If the left and center of these debates didn't argue back they'd be fools. The right in this country tends to follow demonization with laws and regulations, and with extra-legal police actions. The left is afraid of you because you provide the kinds of arguments that provide a pretext for official repression. One reason that you could write theoretically is that for several years the police were restricting the freedom of assembly rights and actually targetting people who spoke out against the war or who expressed their opinions too loudly -- unless they came from your camp. This is documented.
Both the "left and the right" bears a measure of responsibility for the volcano of anger from the Muslim world that produced the 9/11 attacks." If "President Jimmy Carter's withdrawal of support for the shah of Iran," was responsible for the volcano erupting, it was support for the Shah of Iraq that created much of that bottled up anger in the first place. The Shah was a brutal dictator whose SAVAK was modeled on the SS, KGB, and other secret polices and whose policies only drove Islamicists and their ideas underground while repressing the sorts of expression that might have provided some moderating conceptual alternatives to violence. Ayatollah Khomeini was able to betray the democraticizing instincts of the Iranian intelligencia because the Shah had provided no credible alternative to Islamicists as "reformers" of the previous corrupt regime. When the only choices are "far right" and "far left" everyone in the middle becomes forced to chose between unpallatable alternatives. If Jimmy Carter had tried to support the Shah, all he'd have done was to put off the day of recogning for his regime. He enjoyed neither majority support nor legitimacy outside the military and the wealthy classes of Iran.
The notion that Bin Laden decided to attack the US based on perceptions of US weakness because of "President Bill Clinton's failure to respond to Islamic attacks" is itself an opinion that the facts can no more justify than the notion that "Bin Laden" was upset with US troops in the Holy land. Bin Laden based his calculations on his needs for fame and support at home. The best way to get that fame would be to attack the US. Calculations on US strength were only required to measure his probability of being able to pull it off. Bill Clinton did respond to Islamicist attacks. He hunted down attackers, and you'll remember his missiles drove Bin Laden from Africa to Afghanistan. We had a consensus on fighting terrorists that terrorism is a diplomatic and law enforcement issue unless there are states overtly involved. Clinton was attacked by the right for the measures he did take. It was during the "Monica Lewinsky" nonsense that he sought to retaliate against Bin Laden, and the right demonized him for trying to "wag the dog." Apparantly on the right can do this particular trick.
Now as to your next point, well you have a point. "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." But this issue is also why you've stirred up a hornets next at home. The fact is that the Islamicists are right-wingers like you. And that means that if you argue that the Islamicists are right on this issue you are arguing on their side.
We've had terrorism at home from right wingers enraged by the same issues. We've also had minority governments seeking to ram their own concept of morality down the throats of people in other regions of the country or majorities who don't share those views. That doesn't make it the fault of "legitimate progressives" that people take violence against them. Nor is it the fault of the "legitimate right" that some progressives result to violence. On the contrary, it is the duty of all civilized people to resist violence no matter what the professed motive of the professors is. A civilized people use the rule of law, consensus, persuasion, debate, and the democratic process to advance moral and legal concept.
Finally there is a broader viewpoint to all this. You argue "Contrary to President Bush's view, they don't hate us for our freedom, either. Rather, they hate us for how we use our freedom." But the truth is that some of the leaders of all these movements do indeed hate "us" for our freedom. At the root of most of the conflicts going on in this world is narrow self-interest coupled to demogoguery and manipulation. Bin Laden may believe some of what he says, but mostly it is part of his power-game. He argues what he thinks will be incendiary and will get him donations, fame and supporters. For people such as him, and many who oppose him, this is all a big game in which ideas are part of the chess-pieces available to them.
To defeat Islamicists and Islamicism requires a shift in the power elements involved so that those seeking power can no longer rely on the methods of division, inflamation, sophist arguments, or simplistic arguments. If we are going to "beat" Bin Laden, we need to shift the terms of the game. It seems to me you are playing the same game. If you want to make a positive influence you'll play a different one.
Chris to: dineshjdsouza@aol.com
Reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601624_2.html
My article gave only a brief summary of my argument, because the focus of the article was on the "hate" reviews. So you are rebutting the "Sparks Notes" version of my argument, not the argument itself. The points you raise are well considered in my book. There is no generic attack on liberals or "the left," throughout I name names. I have almost a whole chapter on the Carter business. I show the Clinton folks had around 10 chances to kill Bin Laden and took none of them. So I'd urge you to read "The Enemy at Home" and then I would like to hear your reaction.
best, Dinesh D'Souza
To Dinesh:
You write a book and title it "The Enemy At Home" and are surprised at the reaction you got? Are you kidding? What is this with "The Left" and "The Right" anyway. You obviously seem an intelligent person so why be surprised at the reaction when the title of your book demonizes people and your book does more than arbue that the "American left" bears "some" responbility. It basically makes the one sided case that the left is entirely responsible for 9/11. Which doesn't push forward either the debate or a rational appraisal of what the issues are really about. If you didn't intend to divide the country why write the book? There is more than enough "blame" to go around for 9/11 and there have been enough books demonizing the left for America's woes to justify some fear. Just read anything by that lightweight Ann Coulter.
If the left and center of these debates didn't argue back they'd be fools. The right in this country tends to follow demonization with laws and regulations, and with extra-legal police actions. The left is afraid of you because you provide the kinds of arguments that provide a pretext for official repression. One reason that you could write theoretically is that for several years the police were restricting the freedom of assembly rights and actually targetting people who spoke out against the war or who expressed their opinions too loudly -- unless they came from your camp. This is documented.
Both the "left and the right" bears a measure of responsibility for the volcano of anger from the Muslim world that produced the 9/11 attacks." If "President Jimmy Carter's withdrawal of support for the shah of Iran" was responsible for the volcanoe erupting, it was support for the Shah of Iraq that created much of that bottled up anger in the first place. The Shah was a brutal dictator whose SAVAK was modeled on the SS, KGB, and other secret polices and whose policies only drove Islamicists and their ideas underground while repressing the sorts of expression that might have provided some moderating conceptual alternatives to violence. Ayatollah Khomeini was able to betray the democraticizing instincts of the Iranian intelligencia because the Shah had provided no credible alternative to Islamicists as "reformers" of the previous corrupt regime. When the only choices are "far right" and "far left" everyone in the middle becomes forced to chose between unpallatable alternatives. If Jimmy Carter had tried to support the Shah, all he'd have done was to put off the day of recogning for his regime. He enjoyed neither majority support nor legitimacy outside the military and the wealthy classes of Iran.
The notion that Bin Laden decided to attack the US based on perceptions of US weakness because of "President Bill Clinton's failure to respond to Islamic attacks" is itself an opinion that the facts can no more justify than the notion that "Bin Laden" was upset with US troops in the Holy land. Bin Laden based his calculations on his needs for fame and support at home. The best way to get that fame would be to attack the US. Calculations on US strength were only required to measure his probability of being able to pull it off. Bill Clinton did respond to Islamicist attacks. He hunted down attackers, and you'll remember his missiles drove Bin Laden from Africa to Afghanistan. We had a consensus on fighting terrorists that terrorism is a diplomatic and law enforcement issue unless there are states overtly involved. Clinton was attacked by the right for the measures he did take. It was during the "Monica Lewinsky" nonsense that he sought to retaliate against Bin Laden, and the right demonized him for trying to "wag the dog." Apparantly on the right can do this particular trick.
Now as to your next point, well you have a point. "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." But this issue is also why you've stirred up a hornets next at home. The fact is that the Islamicists are right-wingers like you. And that means that if you argue that the Islamicists are right on this issue you are arguing on their side.
We've had terrorism at home from right wingers enraged by the same issues. We've also had minority governments seeking to ram their own concept of morality down the throats of people in other regions of the country or majorities who don't share those views. That doesn't make it the fault of "legitimate progressives" that people take violence against them. Nor is it the fault of the "legitimate right" that some progressives result to violence. On the contrary, it is the duty of all civilized people to resist violence no matter what the professed motive of the professors is. A civilized people use the rule of law, consensus, persuasion, debate, and the democratic process to advance moral and legal concept.
Finally there is a broader viewpoint to all this. You argue "Contrary to President Bush's view, they don't hate us for our freedom, either. Rather, they hate us for how we use our freedom." But the truth is that some of the leaders of all these movements do indeed hate "us" for our freedom. At the root of most of the conflicts going on in this world is narrow self-interest coupled to demogoguery and manipulation. Bin Laden may believe some of what he says, but mostly it is part of his power-game. He argues what he thinks will be incendiary and will get him donations, fame and supporters. For people such as him, and many who oppose him, this is all a big game in which ideas are part of the chess-pieces available to them.
To defeat Islamicists and Islamicism requires a shift in the power elements involved so that those seeking power can no longer rely on the methods of division, inflamation, sophist arguments, or simplistic arguments. If we are going to "beat" Bin Laden, we need to shift the terms of the game. It seems to me you are playing the same game. If you want to make a positive influence you'll play a different one.
Chris to: dineshjdsouza@aol.com
referencing:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601624_2.html