Update:
A far better critique of D’Souza than the Ryan Chittum piece (from the rogue-hedge-fund-subsidized Columbia Journalism Review ) is this one at The American Thinker by Jack Cashill.
Unlike Chittum, Cashill has actually done some digging on Obama himself. He’s the author of the excellent literary deconstruction of Obama’s poem, “Pop.”
ORIGINAL POST (links, afterword, and update added on Sept. 23)
An insightful if controversial* piece by conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza. I don’t always agree with D’Souza and find some of his arguments more than a little thoughtless, even glib, at times. But he’s an always evolving and interesting thinker on many issues.
[*That’s the usual criticism from the left. For the usual criticism from the right, see here]
In any case, conservatives like to trot him out to say controversial things about race, especially as it pertains to African-Americans, no doubt on the bizarre grounds that a really dark guy couldn’t be seen as racist.
Of course, that’s not true, and the usual liberal suspects who might have listened to a white man expound on similar subjects without openly calling him a racist (Daniel Patrick Moynihan, for one), are only too happy to shed the veneer of tolerance they wear as arbiters of racial sensitivity and vent their own racial anger at an easy target – a black conservative….and an immigrant from the “cess-pool” of the third-world at that. The effrontery is too much for them and they are quick to put him in his place.
Alas, D’Souza is a sharp guy and no matter what they do, he doesn’t go back into the box. Anyway, someone who gets the intellectual establishment so riled up can’t be all bad.
Thus Ryan Chittum at the Columbia Journalism Review:
“But D’Souza has some real nerve here: Obama is a native-born American and D’Souza is not. When he says “Here is a man who spent his formative years—the first 17 years of his life—off the American mainland,” he could be referring to himself. According to wikipedia, anyway, he was born in India in 1961 and never came to the States until 1978. That adds up to about “the first 17 years of his life—off the American mainland.” Somehow the first-seventeen years thing raises questions about Obama’s Americanness but not about D’Souza’s qualifications to question somebody’s degree of native-born Americanness.”
Let’s see. There is no constitutional requirement of citizenship (Correction: natural born citizenship) for anyone who wants to vent an opinion in a magazine. There is one for the President of the United States (and de facto boss of the “free world-anglosphere-western establishment-zionist empire..whatever..).
Tell me, how do you get to be a WSJ editor reporter and CJR pundit without being able to make that distinction?
Here are two excerpts from D’Souza’s recent piece at Forbes:
“Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America. As one of Obama’s acknowledged intellectual influences, Frantz Fanon, wrote in The Wretched of the Earth, “The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races.”
Anticolonialists hold that even when countries secure political independence they remain economically dependent on their former captors. This dependence is called neocolonialism, a term defined by the African statesman Kwame Nkrumah (1909–72) in his book Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. Nkrumah, Ghana’s first president, writes that poor countries may be nominally free, but they continue to be manipulated from abroad by powerful corporate and plutocratic elites. These forces of neocolonialism oppress not only Third World people but also citizens in their own countries. Obviously the solution is to overthrow the oppressors. This was the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. and many in his generation, including many of my own relatives in India.”
and
“From the anticolonial perspective, American imperialism is on a rampage. For a while, U.S. power was checked by the Soviet Union, but since the end of the Cold War America has been the sole superpower. Moreover, 9/11 provided the occasion for America to invade and occupy two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and also to seek political and economic domination in the same way the French and the British empires once did. So in the anticolonial view, America is now the rogue elephant that subjugates and tramples the people of the world.
It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America’s military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father’s position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America’s power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe’s resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.
For Obama, the solutions are simple. He must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West. And here is where our anticolonial understanding of Obama really takes off, because it provides a vital key to explaining not only his major policy actions but also the little details that no other theory can adequately account for.”
My Comment
D’Souza is being blasted for being “racist” for noting that Obama Senior’s anticolonialism informs his son’s. I fail to see what’s racist about this. You might think the evidence isn’t sufficient or the argument is sloppy, but racist? In fact, I felt far more sympathetic toward Obama after reading it. And D’Souza himself admits he founds Obama’s relation to his Kenyan father touching.
In fact, what’s wrong with the D’Souza piece is not its analysis of Obama’s thinking. D’Souza is correct in diagnosing Obama’s view of America as coming out of the anti-colonial movement.
The problem is that Obama’s diagnosis of American state capitalism is not true of capitalism, per se. Obama (and presumably others who hold anti-imperial views) seem to confuse the neocolonialism of state-driven capitalism with free market capitalism itself.
What’s also wrong is that the remedy Obama proposes for this amalgamation of state and economy is a still greater dose of statism.
So D’Souza gets some details right, but, in fact, his big picture is just as wrong as Obama’s.
That is to say, Obama’s putative refusal to see anything but imperialism in American capitalism is incorrect. But D’Souza’s apparent inability to find any imperialism at all in the current system is equally mistaken.
And thus, in so far as they both mistake the conflation of state and business for free markets, D’Souza and Obama are on exactly the same page.
Apparently, that’s also the page that Steve Forbes is on. As well as the Columbia Journalism Review.
As always with the mainstream media, what’s missing from the debate is more important than the debate.