The Roots of Dinesh D’Souza’s Racism and Adultery
“Marriage requires a) two people who are b) of legal age and c) not closely related to each other who are d) one male and one female. Note that this definition excludes people who want to marry children, or guys who want to marry their sisters, or Muslims who want to take four wives, or that strange guy who wants to marry his dog.”-Dinesh D’Souza quoted at Conservapedia on Marriage
“Issues like divorce and family breakdown are important in themselves, yet they are ultimately symbols of a great moral shift that has occurred in American society, one that continues to divide and polarize this country, and one that is at the root of the anti-Americanism of traditional cultures.”-Dinesh D’Souza, in The Enemy At Home
“UM UM UM UM UM UM.”- Dinesh D’Souza in an interview with Christianity Today on the question of him being unfaithful to his wife
” “Feminists/liberals who intended to destroy and transform that sacred cornerstone of American society—the traditional family”-Odie Joseph II, Dinesh D’Souza’s fiancee while he’s still married, in her Smart? Girl Politics post, Whatever Happened To Good Ole Hypocrisy? (an epic fail in blog post titles on traditional values and sex if ever I’ve read one– I for one thought Odie’s post made the best case ever against Ke$ha’s music, but i digress!)
I, Denise, Lust After (Other Women’s Husbands!)
In the beginning, there was a anti-Black racist who worked for the Reagan Administration. As he went on in life, he promoted ideas like blacks had an inferior culture to whites, interviewing a Ku Klux Klan man with an image of a black man being lynched, and annually harassing a black professor at an ivy league school (teaching MUSIC of all topics) all the while hordes of conservative Christians praised this man for peddling colonial lies and ignoring historical facts in the name of color-blind racism. Pinning the effects of racism solely on the shoulders of blacks, as well as being the brownface for racist whites when it comes to personally attacking leaders of “the” black community, “How did Martin Luther King succeed, almost single-handedly, in winning support for his agenda? Why was his Southern opposition virtually silent in making counterarguments?” That’s right ladies and gentlemen, MLK Jr was by himself, he was like Super-Man, saving the universe from segregation, or, in Dinesh’s eyes, he was more like Gorilla Grodd.
D’Souza’s racist views are offensive, even to usually tolerant black conservatives. What makes D’Souza’s popularlity among U.S. American conservative evangelicals is the fact that he identifies himself as Catholic. As time passes, I will have to keep wondering about a close acquaintance from undergrad (who was white, male, and evangelical) who kept telling me to read Dinesh D’Souza’s books, as if that was going to cure me of my anti-racist and radical ways. Maybe I will go back and read his work on race, so I can debunk his racism like I did with racist writer Douglas Wilson’s Black And Tan.
Grace and Fred are right to call out evangelicals for never bothering to question D’Souza and his works for his racism.
I think there is a factor we are forgetting in all of this. Both Denise Odie Joseph II and Dinesh D’Souza have a pathological fear of black people as the threat to Western Cultural purity. D’Souza is not the first famous conservative Christian to transgress the very morality he professes to uphold. But what I think should be pointed out, that he as a former official for the Reagan administration, has exposed the instability of Reagan Conservativism. What I mean by this is this: if Reagan Conservativism is understood as the peaceful unity between military conservatives, social conservatives, and economic conservatives, the values of D’Souza shows it incoherence in spite of modern-day so-called Reagan conservatives’ claims that their philosophy is coherent. If I take my example for Richard Nixon from my previous post this morning, or even Eisenhower, neither men could be considered economic or social conservatives, but they would fit the bill when it comes to being favorable to military conservatives in terms of foreign policy. Reagan unified these three movements (as the political myth goes), in the name of FREEDOM! to win the Cold War. The emphasis on individualism and freedom means freedom for some, and the protection of individual rights for the few and elite. The conservative message of freedom and individuality undermines its own preference for tradition, even recasting tradition (as D’Souza did as editor of the Dartmouth Review) in a racist light (for the DR, it was keeping the memory of the Dartmouth Indians alive).
The heritage of Reagan Conservativism as it stands right now forces good, well-reasoned conservatives to choose bad traditions over the good ones (say, Henry Cabot Lodge’s pro-peace/anti-Woodrow Wilson strand). Economic liberty defined as unrestrained corporation-driven capitalism goes against the conservative notion of justice and harmony for the well-being of society, and yes, promoters of rugged individualism who scapegoat people of color as transgressors, will of course, be the very monsters that they are scared of. The differences between social conservatives, military conservatives, and economic conservatives are real, and conservatives should stop denying these facts.
Otherwise, we are just going to witness more conservative male heroes exemplifying the sanctity of marriage by dating/becoming engaged to women half-their age and who run blogs in the name of Lust, Avarice, and Accumulation!