|
Mr. D'Souza writes in a clear, enjoyable style. I gave this book to each of my sons - one who has conservative values (as I do), and the other who is ambivalent about politics. If he does take the time to read this book, I'm hoping it will at least kindle an interest in politics, and possibly lean him towards conservative ideas.
I found the arguments to be extremely simple talking points without any intellectual weight to them - the book makes assumptions and then works from them without doing anything to ballast them. Economics may have certain common formulas and a common glossary, though approaches differ and economics (like D'Souza, incidentally, as a commentator) can spout off on ramifications without check or balance as much as they'd like.Left-wingers, he says, think that a "fair" society is one where they would be rich and successful for their intelligence, while conservatives are rewarded for hard work and business sense. For example, a cheap shot at left-wingers - conservatives tend to work in business or sciences which can be backed up with hard data, he says, like economists, while liberals tend to work in less verifiable fields such as sociology where they will have "power" as professors. Really. This goes completely against the progressive analysis of inequality in society - either he doesn't know it or prefers not to give this context. Either way the "letters" format gives D'Souza an excuse not to follow-up on his half-baked neocon ideas and the book serves only as drivel for the Hannitized.
D'Souza also became involved with the Dartmouth review and liked its tactics and humor: "We were not above ad hominem attacks". Sixth, Violence in the course of legitimate aims is necessary and appropriate. The construction and mechanics of D'Souza's arguments are solid; once one accepts their premises, it is very difficult to not accept their conclusions, even if one approaches the book from a quite different position than the author's.D'Souza's premises, therefore, are where one can aim an initial response. Fifth, actions taken out of self-interest, even when they impinge on the freedoms of other people are justified: "To ask a nation to ignore its own self-interest is tantamount to asking it to put aside the welfare of its people." (p207).
In pointing out these premises, some may accuse me of quoting out of context, but here D'Souza himself comes to my defense: "All quotations are out of context" (p139). Virtue in this context has a specific set of meanings including "merit, patriotism, prosperity, national unity, social order, morality, responsibility," and NOT "equality, compassion, pluralism, diversity, social justice, peace, autonomy, tolerance." (pp 7-8) Second, there is a fundamental belief in "warped timber of humanity": "Conservatives recognized that there are two principles in human nature--good and evil--and they are in constant conflict." By contrast, liberals are seen as naïve because they claim "conflicts in the world are not the result of good versus evil; rather they arise out of terrible misunderstandings." (p9) Third, when freedom and virtue themselves are in conflict, then "the best argument for freedom in is not that it is an end in itself but that it is the necessary prerequisite for choosing what is right." (p14) There we have it, virtue (in its specific meaning) is more important than freedom. A final note about the background on how D'Souza became a conservative at Dartmouth: He was very impressed by Jeffrey Hart, a professor of English there and a senior editor at the National Review magazine. But this is a minor quibble, because every essayist does this to some extent.Seventh, "Even hypocrisy--professing one thing but doing another--is in the conservative view preferable to a denial of standards." (p6). This point may be used to justify the dictatorships of people such as Somoza, Pinochet and Marcos (p206). And if there is prevailing liberal culture, then "one must seek to undermine it, to thwart it, to destroy it at the root level.
Other freedoms are not part of traditional liberalism, such as the New Deal's freedom from want, or the 1960's "liberation" philosophy (attributed by D'Souza to Rousseau) in which moral freedom challenged the previous moral order. Within conservatism, distinctions are drawn between the European "throne and alter" strand, and the American strand that developed in the colonies, culminating in the Revolution.As other reviewers have pointed out, the chapters in this book can be used to construct a series of cheat sheets of conservative talking points and their support. Hart, who liked to interrupt colleagues in faculty meetings by churning a noisy wooden rotary device. This book provides pithy descriptions of modern liberalism (not classical liberalism, which overlaps quite considerably with modern conservatism), conservatism and libertarianism. Readers can form their opinions about D'Souza's premises, and then judge his arguments, which are forceful and support modern conservative positions on affirmative action, taxes, multiculturalism, use of military, gay marriage, left-wing judges, the 3/5 clause in the constitution, guns, postmodernists and many other topics.
This means that the conservative must stop being conservative." (p25)Fourth, "religion is primary source of morality." (p111). Such wit. I'll digress slightly and point out this often used technique in the book, which is oversimplifying or misstating liberal positions. Dinesh D'Souza is smart, and I would not want to engage him in a debate without considerable preparation, because he is an accomplished rhetorician, who solidly grasps historical facts and conservative tradition. Dr. Hart, who wore buttons saying things like "soak the poor." Dr. To victim of aids, Dr.
Hart suggested a tattoo on their buttocks stating "abandon all hope, ye who enter here." Nice mentor. One of the columnists of the review quipped "The question is not whether women should be educated at Dartmouth. One such premise is the addition of "virtue" to the classical liberal belief in religious, expressive, economic and political freedom. The question is whether women should be educated at all." Compelling and funny stuff. "The problem with liberals is that they never give bayonets a chance." (p209). Most modern liberals support the use of force in the appropriate circumstances. Members of the review satirized the gay students society by finding the Dartmouth Bestiality Society" and appointed "a president, a vice president, a treasurer and a zookeeper".
I have read D'Souza's "What's So Great About America" and "Illiberal Education" and have walked away with a better understanding of a handful of controversial issues and their logical solutions. Dinesh D'Souza writes, yet again, another great work. With "Letters to a Young Conservative", every politically debatable topic you can think of is covered in a concise, efficient manner, which only Mr. Its casual medium (in this case letters to a young conservative) makes it easy to comprehend for anyone, of any age, wanting to understand reasoning behind a conservative mindset. The series of short chapters, or letters, cover every pertinent topic affecting the operation of not only our government but the societies we live in today. D'Souza can do best. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand conservative reasoning, whether they are a liberal, conservative, or (especially) politically undecided.
I never imposed my beliefs on anyone or told anyone that they need to feel the way I do, but somehow multiple leftist professors felt justified in criticizing, singling me out, and ridiculing me in the middle of class. Being a young conservative, it became very easy to feel persecuted in my beliefs. Attending a college university, I needed this book as a sort of chickens soup if you will due to the hard left constantly shoving it's messages down your throats. Great, academia hard at work. Yes, liberals, I felt persecuted in many of my classes where we were asked to openly speak our beliefs and opinions. I shared some of my own beliefs regarding free enterprise, support for the 2nd amendment, low taxes, and small government. Anyway, it's not my intention to make this review a complaining session but this book was given to me by my father who knew that today's liberal elite college campuses make sure that there is plenty of room for diversity (that is diversity minus one).Dinesh covers almost every topic that might come up in a typical college debate, and does so with wit and humor. I highly recommend it for any conservative student, or simply a new college student who is in danger of being told to "leave behind everything your parents taught you".
|
