On Dinesh D'Souza and Republican Positions

9:49am Saturday, Feb 3, 2007

At the recommendation of a friend, I took an hour to read up on Dinesh D'Souza, conservative writer and Hoover Institution Fellow.

Hmm. Sounded like an interesting fellow. Below are some of the ideas that he raises.

Source articles:
Long Profile
How the Left caused 9/11r

Other articles I'd be happy to talk about some other day (I think I actually posted them in the past):
Why I'm an anti-anti-American
God knows why faith is thriving

* * *

Islamic terrorists hate American culture more than they do American policy
America's liberalism is at odds with the Islamic way of life. Something's wrong when Islamic youth in, say, Saudi Arabia are being handed free condoms. To America, this act prevents illegitimate children; to Islam, this act implicitly endorses sexual exploration, which goes directly against Islam's fundamental values.

According to D'Souza, America is quietly imposing its cultural identity on the world. Those who hold diametrically opposite values are forced into war--for them, the alternative is much more dire: if they do nothing, their culture will continue to be chipped away piece-by-piece, until they have nothing left to defend.

To them, this gradual erosion of their identity is a bigger threat than American political actions; it hits closer to home. An ordinary man has limited capacity for feeling another country's pain and conjecturing how it will affect his own wellbeing. He has no choice but to take action, however, when his very essence is being threatened.

My take: Fair enough, but D'Souza's claim is too broad. With this argument, he shows that Islamic revolutionaries do have a legitimate reason for battle; what he cannot show, however, is that this is the primary reason. We form that conclusion based on how we imagine what D'Souza describes would impact us if we were in their shoes.

Imagine this. I am sitting at a desk with fifty pens, which I have carefully collected over the years. A coworker comes by, takes my favorite pen, and tells me "you have so many! No need to get huffy about it!" The casual onlooker might agree with him. The next day, another coworker comes by and takes one, though this time, he doesn't say a word. If I complain, some will be perplexed as to why I'm getting worked up over something so trivial; they will say that I should just let it slide. As time goes on, I have only two left, and people wonder why I keep griping about no longer having fifty. They call me greedy. They say I'm emotional. From their perspective, I have exactly what most of them have, and they see nothing wrong; from my own, I have lost a cherished collection of mementos.

If we were in a Muslim's shoes--hell, if we were in a Christian's shoes--we would see the injustice that D'Souza describes, and understand how we might similarly be motivated to defend ourselves. How could we not? Would I let somebody take away something I cherish and not feel indignation? Would I let somebody take away someone I love and not put up a fight?

Herein is the danger, though: D'Souza doesn't have to prove to us that this is the primary reason; we empathize with the moral dilemma that he describes, and therefore believe that it holds more weight than other more abstract explanations available.

I can agree with his portrayal of the dilemma Muslims face, but I cannot assume that this is the causal factor rather than just one of many.

* * *

Liberals' foreign policy actions facilitated the creation of terrorist organizations
D'Souza contends that America's support of "evil" regimes throughout history was usually carried out to ensure that greater evils did not emerge. When "nicer" presidencies withdrew support for these regimes and let them collapse, more formidable opponents came to power.

My take: No opinion. I would believe this only if I believed that those "nicer" presidencies:
a. Were oblivious to the strategic implications of the existing support policies.
b. Disagreed with them, and were stupid to do so.
b. Too weak to stand their ground against uninformed popular opinion, caving in and adopting a suboptimal solution rather than putting the next election at risk.

All of these are plausible, but I don't have the evidence I would need to back up any of these claims. Whatever conclusions I draw at present would come out of prejudice rather than true inquiry.

An aside: This is an interesting problem--even if D'Souza's argument is internally consistent, even if his arguments naturally flow into one another without "leakage", he proves nothing to the person who does not agree with his premises. If D'Souza's argument depends on the reader's predisposition towards Liberals's knowledgeability, intelligence and strength of character, then they will make perfect sense to the conservative who agrees with D'Souza on these points, and no sense whatsoever to the progressive whose experiences have led them to the opposite conclusion.

* * *

Ronald Reagan ended the cold war, and doesn't receive enough credit for what he did

During his presidency, Reagan was criticized for accelerating the arms race and seemingly bringing the world closer to nuclear war. D'Souza argues that Reagan strategically bankrupted the Soviet Union by ramping defense spending up to a pace that the Soviet Union could not sustain. What seemed like a crazy and disturbing risk to the outside world was actually a calculated and brilliant way to not just keep the peace, but eliminate the threat altogether. Why settle for pacing your opponent when you can lure him into running so hard that he gets a heart attack?


My take: What if his strategy had failed? D'Souza's critics say that we're favorably biased towards him because what he proposed ended up working. Had he failed, we would probably deride him for embarking on a foolish path, even if he'd made the right decision.

We're seeing the flip side of this right now with the war in Iraq. It doesn't matter right now if our current president's decision-making was sound and reasonable; the war isn't working, and most will conclude that the original decision was foolish. The same holds true for Vietnam and our beliefs about the Domino Theory logic behind it.

I would like to believe that Reagan was a brilliant strategist. The story D'Souza paints has all the elements of a great hero, of the kind of entrepreneur I aspire to be: Reagan sees something that everybody else cannot; they criticize him, but he stands his ground; he is not only proven right, but creates an amazing outcome for all of his detractors, as well.

It's the classic underdog story; I've been an underdog all my life!

I'd like to read up on this more, though. What I know about the development of the Cuban Missile Crisis makes it hard for me to believe that Reagan had as much foresight as D'Souza and others purport; JFK was making bets on what the Soviets were doing; history shows he was only mostly correct in his assumptions. Had chance not worked in America's favor on the subtle things...

I can revere Reagan for being innovative with his solutions, and for being a good, calculated risk-taker. That, however, is fundamentally different from the veneration which is given to a "visionary" who knew the truth all along when everybody else did not.

More realistic, perhaps, and no less commendable.

People will differ in their opinion of him based on how they feel about the stakes in the game he played. Remember that Reagan was betting the future of the American people on the idea that the Soviets would crash and burn. To some, that is courage; to others, irresponsible recklessness.

* * *

Affirmative Action is a case of "right cause, wrong solution"

D'Souza's argument against Affirmative Action is this:
a. We aspire towards a society in which a person's heritage does not deny him the right to succeed.
b. Affirmative action, while noble in purpose, interferes with this process by setting artificial quotas for students based on race. The competition for the best placements is therefore stratified, harder for some groups, and easier for others.
c. Race is the wrong metric for stratification; its continued usage is giving us a suboptimal education system.

Why is race the wrong metric? Because as race becomes decoupled from socioeconomic status, those at the top of the ladder have a far easier time maintaining their position at the top than those at the bottom do in climbing the ladder.

Why? Suppose I am a first generation Asian immigrant. I come from a poor family, a dangerous neighborhood, and a mediocre school. My grades do not reflect my full potential.

Who is my competition for the top schools? All the other smart students, many of whom are upper-middle class, with access to tutors, good parenting, stable living environments and the nation's top high schools.

If affirmative action stratifies admissions according to race, then I will have a harder time getting in. On paper, I look inferior to the 4.0 GPA, 1600 SAT whiz kids whose parents got them into university-level research when they were in middle school. There are a lot of Asian upper-middle class families out there, who, by nature of how remarkable they look on paper, will fill up many of the best slots. They're proven quantities; I'm not.

Now what if I were upper-middle class Aborigineal? I might find it easier to get into top schools than equivalent Asians because I belong to a very distinctive and scarce minority group, even though I accomplished less with the same resources. I will also look more appealing than a more-talented lower class immigrant Asian, because my environment gave me more opportunities to show what I can do.

If race is a deciding factor in admissions, then we consciously trade merit-worthy candidates for minority candidates that will add diversity to our student population. And if most of those diversity slots are taken up by upper-middle class minorities? Then we end up with a student population diverse in race, but homogenous in socioeconomic background. The talented lower class Asian immigrant loses out to the less-talented upper-middle class Aborigineal.

D'Souza argues that fine-tunings of the admissions process should be based on socioeconomic status rather than race. You can infer a lot about the disadvantages a person faces when you understand where he lives, what he is taught, and what additional responsibilities he must bear; you cannot infer these things from race alone.

My take: Agreed.

An aside: What if, however, it is more beneficial to society to take a group of minorities who have achieved a certain level of success, and propel them upwards towards even greater heights? The validity of this argument will depend on its readers' beliefs of whether a person's heritage fundamentally limits on what he can achieve. The movie Gattaca comes to mind. I am happy to write more on this if anybody asks me to.

* * *

Political correctness leads to silence on the issues that burn in our souls

"This phenomenon is not just censorship in the pure sense -- you're not allowed to say this or that -- but the idea that politics and etiquette conspire to narrow the permissible range of debate. "

D'Souza spent a year on college campuses seeing how "diversity" played out in real life. Here's what he saw:

a. Universities tell their students, "you are wonderfully diverse in race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, values."
b. Implicitly, students learn, "other people aren't wrong, just...different"
c. Soon, diversity itself becomes the cherished cause; critical analyses of "different" people are perceived as persecution.
d. Knowing this, students learn to accept others as they are, dodging tougher subjects in favor of chit-chat about things they can be certain will offend no one.
e. In time, this creates an environment that allows everybody to make a case for what they believe, but accidentally minimizes everybody else's ability to engage them in thoughtful discourse.

My Take: I wrote an article on the topic. In retrospect, I didn't actually see much discussion of politics in which opposing viewpoints engaged each other. I agree with D'Souza on this point--political correctness is a double-edged sword.

* * *

Other interesting points
(I've spent 8 hours writing this. I'm tired. If people actually find this interesting, I'm happy to elaborate on these last few points, but for now, a few lines will have to suffice)

Black culture is to blame for the current condition of African-Americans in America
Cultural differences, not racism, explain why African Americans are not moving up the socioeconomic ladder.

My take: True, but America's responsible for creating that culture in the first place.

Fault generally lies within the individual, not with society
Modern society assumes that the individual holds less fault for his condition than the society that screws him over; this view conditions people to not feel responsible for their own actions, leading them to both blame and become dependent on others.

My take: Accurate diagnosis of the disease's symptoms, accurate foundation for how charity should actually be done. But this view underestimates the effects that society does have on individuals, and the role it plays in limiting what they can achieve.

Pluralism is Corruptive
"As John Stuart Mill says, through open-mindedness you debate, you reason, you examine, in order to find out what's true. If you're dogmatically committed to an open-mindedness that never allows you to say, 'This is true,' then the means subverts the end. You're open-minded, but there's never anything in there. "

My Take: True, but the inverse of this is to be so committed to a truth that you will not comprehend a truer answer if it comes along. On most things, therefore, I think we shall float somewhere in the middle of these two views.