Dinesh D'Souza's original spew is
here, and his juvenile answer to critics (other than the Forbes bloggers) is
here.
A reply from the right, from Shikha Dalmia, a senior editor at the libertarian Reason Foundation:
http://blogs.forbes.com/shikhadalmia/2010/09/17/dsouza-to-obama-with-malice/...
Writers these days are supposed to cultivate a niche, and D’Souza seems to have homesteaded the intellectual goofiness spot all for himself. His post-9/11 tract, The Enemy at Home, which blamed American sexual decadence for inspiring the Twin Tower attacks, was so far out of left – or, was it, right? – field that even his team members abandoned him. And so far D’Souza’s Forbes piece has inspired the same reception — a collective “huh?” – from allies and opponents alike. The one exception is Newt Gingrich who has dubbed this the “most profound insight anyone has had about Barack Obama in six years.” But it would be possible to take the former Republican House speaker seriously only if he didn’t do the intellectual equivalent of howling at the moon with disturbing regularity these days. He has been making one over-the-top suggestion after another to prevent poor Imam Rauf from building his version of the YMCA near Ground Zero, even advocating the deployment of the government’s eminent domain powers to stop the project — a complete “refudiation” of his own cherished views about the sanctity of property rights.
...
D’Souza’s thesis is so obviously flawed that one has to wonder what caused him to propose it. Accusing Obama of Keynesiasm or socialism or crony-capitalism — as the rest of us Obama critics are doing — is damning enough. Why does D’Souza need to go further?
Part of the reason no doubt is that D’Souza suffers from the pundit’s curse – the need to say something original, something different, regardless of how unsustainable. But the bigger reason is this: Socialism – no matter how unworkable – is still a fully elaborated socio-economic vision that has to be confronted on its own terms with arguments and evidence. One can accuse its advocates of being misguided or utopian or wrong. But one can’t accuse them of bad faith. Anti-colonialism, on the other hand, means not that Obama has the wrong ideas, but that he is on the wrong side. He is the “other.” And no argument is needed to deal with the “other.” Ad hominem attacks do just fine.
And there is not an ad hominem lead that D’Souza misses. D’Souza even declares open season on Obama’s family. In a parody of investigative journalism, he castigates the media for failing to explore Obama’s intellectual ties to his dad. He digs up a decades-old article by Obama Sr. making the case for Africans reasserting control over their own resources in order to damn Obama with guilt by association. “This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anti-colonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son,” D’Souza rants.
...
-----------------------------------
And from the left, author of Forbes' Culture Mulcher blog, Craig Silver:
http://blogs.forbes.com/craigsilver/2010/09/22/fallacious-malicious-and-unpatriotic/...
Many staffers were dismayed to learn our pages were going to be turned over to a propagandist hack from the far-right fringe for what turned out to be a stupefyingly inane, quasi-racist bomb-toss at our president. Perhaps because the article was so utterly devoid of intellectual probity and indeed was for the most part absurd–imputing that the president, embroiled in an exceedingly difficult war abroad, is in effect on the other side–we thought and hoped this ugly unpatriotic rant wouldn’t be taken seriously or barely be noticed. Alas, it proved hard to ignore, having appeared, like bad breath and rotten teeth, in places like dentist offices across the land, as the White House noted.
...
Note that I used the word “unpatriotic” above. I think many on the right need to have their feet held to the fire on this question, especially since they are so quick to charge everyone else with it when it suits their purpose.
I consider myself a political progressive. And I believe Forbes’ content on the whole is, surprise, surprise, basically middle-of-the-road or apolitical, otherwise I could hardly justify working here. I also consider myself a patriot. I think people of my particular political stripe are far more patriotic—more familiar with the principles on which the country is based–than those you often see wrapping themselves in the flag. We can quote more than just the Second Amendment. It means you do criticize the president for routinely breaking laws, for violating the Constitution and of course for working against the interests of the country. Interestingly, the article never claims the first two of these offenses. And for all its fevered, pretzel-logic stridulations, it fails to make any case for the latter.
I hope that the powers that be at Forbes will see that promoting such offal can’t help but damage the brand, keeping serious journalists from wanting to appear in our pages and maybe even advertisers. From what I can see by the feedback, even hard-core readers (not to mention serious-minded conservatives everywhere) were aghast.
...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
