Tapsearch Com EditorDinesh D'Souza's fall
March 6th 2007 00:43
I'm not sure what's gotten into Dinesh D'Souza lately. He was one of the right wing's most articulate spokesmen, but since The Enemy at Home he's gone off the deep end.
(I reviewed that book, quite negatively, for Liberty magazine. Unfortunately, the article is only in print.)
Recently he spewed out this absurd column. The headline is "Another Vietnam? Bring it on."
Now, I'm no fan of liberalism. But the accusations are unprofessional, poorly reasoned and rather absurd; he argues the left wants Iraq to turn into another Vietnam.
Then he systematically tackles some opposing theories:
"One possible objection to the idea that the left wants another Vietnam is the results were not an unqualified triumph for American liberalism. Historians point out that the legacy of Vietnam produced a political backlash that helped Reagan get elected in 1980. The whole conservative ascendancy of the past generation is partly a product of this backlash. Even so, the left during the Vietnam era was able to make permanent changes in American society. Gender relations were transformed. Homosexuals came out of the closet. Abortion on demand became not only legal but interwoven with the lives of millions of Americans. Even now, a quarter of a century later, conservatives can only hope to moderate, but not reverse, these sweeping changes. The left paid a political price for these victories, but it was worth it.
"A second possible objection to the theory that the left wants Vietnam-style defeat in Iraq is that the Islamic radicals are the most illiberal force in the world. The Vietnamese Communists, like Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, at least appealed to liberal principles such as social egalitarianism and workers’ rights. So one might understand how American leftists in the 1960s and 1970s might feel sympathetic toward their cause and view America as the enemy. By contrast, the argument goes, the Islamic radicals who are likely to benefit from America’s defeat in Iraq are resolute enemies of feminism, gay rights, civil liberties, and all the social causes that are a top priority on the left."
The reasoning error here is that it assumes the left only wants what's best for it politically, not what's best for America. It's true that people enjoy being proven correct -- the left opposed this war, and if events validate them, they can say "I told you so." Some are so far to the fringe, also, that they really do hate America and want us to lose.
But it's very possible, and I believe it to be the case, that most liberals want America to win in Iraq. They may think it's unlikely. They may have warned against the situation there from the get-go. They may even advocate withdrawal, thinking it's in America's best interest and will save lives. But given that we're there, most liberals might want America to win as opposed to lose. They're not hoping our troops die.
The burden of proof is on D'Souza to show why the above logic doesn't hold water, to show that the average left-winger really does root for the insurgent in each and every firefight. He doesn't even try. Five years ago, he would have.
By Robert VerBruggen
(I reviewed that book, quite negatively, for Liberty magazine. Unfortunately, the article is only in print.)
Recently he spewed out this absurd column. The headline is "Another Vietnam? Bring it on."
Now, I'm no fan of liberalism. But the accusations are unprofessional, poorly reasoned and rather absurd; he argues the left wants Iraq to turn into another Vietnam.
Then he systematically tackles some opposing theories:
"One possible objection to the idea that the left wants another Vietnam is the results were not an unqualified triumph for American liberalism. Historians point out that the legacy of Vietnam produced a political backlash that helped Reagan get elected in 1980. The whole conservative ascendancy of the past generation is partly a product of this backlash. Even so, the left during the Vietnam era was able to make permanent changes in American society. Gender relations were transformed. Homosexuals came out of the closet. Abortion on demand became not only legal but interwoven with the lives of millions of Americans. Even now, a quarter of a century later, conservatives can only hope to moderate, but not reverse, these sweeping changes. The left paid a political price for these victories, but it was worth it.
"A second possible objection to the theory that the left wants Vietnam-style defeat in Iraq is that the Islamic radicals are the most illiberal force in the world. The Vietnamese Communists, like Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, at least appealed to liberal principles such as social egalitarianism and workers’ rights. So one might understand how American leftists in the 1960s and 1970s might feel sympathetic toward their cause and view America as the enemy. By contrast, the argument goes, the Islamic radicals who are likely to benefit from America’s defeat in Iraq are resolute enemies of feminism, gay rights, civil liberties, and all the social causes that are a top priority on the left."
The reasoning error here is that it assumes the left only wants what's best for it politically, not what's best for America. It's true that people enjoy being proven correct -- the left opposed this war, and if events validate them, they can say "I told you so." Some are so far to the fringe, also, that they really do hate America and want us to lose.
But it's very possible, and I believe it to be the case, that most liberals want America to win in Iraq. They may think it's unlikely. They may have warned against the situation there from the get-go. They may even advocate withdrawal, thinking it's in America's best interest and will save lives. But given that we're there, most liberals might want America to win as opposed to lose. They're not hoping our troops die.
The burden of proof is on D'Souza to show why the above logic doesn't hold water, to show that the average left-winger really does root for the insurgent in each and every firefight. He doesn't even try. Five years ago, he would have.
By Robert VerBruggen
| 48 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Bhumika
Political Minds