Monday, March 12, 2007

Bizzaro-thinking from the right... or, "how to blame the left for EVERYTHING"

I was just reading an article by Dinesh D'Souza on the NRO... D'Souza has written "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11".

While I can't claim to have read the book, D'Souza summarizes a couple of his arguments from the book:

Consider whether, without the Khomeini regime coming to power in Iran in 1979, 9/11 would have occurred. Radical Islam has been around since the 1920s, but for decades it was on the margins of power. Then in 1979 it captured a major state. Khomeini was the first Muslim leader to call America the Great Satan and to call for a worldwide revolution of Muslims committing martyrdom and jihad against the U.S. The Khomeini revolution paved the road to 9/11.

So how did we get Khomeini? When Jimmy Carter was elected in 1979 his liberal advisers told him that he could not consistently uphold human rights and support the Shah of Iran. Carter withdrew American support for the shah, and in trying to get rid of the bad guy, he got the worse guy. So here is a concrete way in which liberal foreign policy handed [emphasis mine] radical Islam control of its first major state.

Is this what passes for thoughtful analysis on the right? Carter's withdrawal of support for a despised tyrant and US puppet was responsible for the rise of Khomeini? Come'on!

Iranians hatred for the Shah pre-dates the Carter administration. Organized protests may have only begun in 1978, but the populaces' disapproval with the Shah and his policies didn't spring up overnight -- His regime was one of extravigance, over-indulgence and corruption. You'd think anyone looking at the situation might consider those to be the major factors in the populace's disenchantment with the ruling class... But somehow, in D'Souza's eye, our lack of support for this corrupt man caused the state to fall into Islamic revolutionary hands.

ad absurdum...

But not for D'Souza: for him -- as for many who call themselves "conservative analysts" -- the error is always traceable back to some left-leaning leader.

I simply don't understand how anyone can read this drivel and buy it... it takes only a few moments of reflection to realize the conclusions are built on a house of cards. Yet I'm sure his book is selling well.

What hope do we have when such non-sense passes for insightful discourse?

6 comments:

Intellectual Insurgent said...

Dinesh D'Souza is an idiot. Accepting his argument as true, however, one would think the US would never go near Iran. But Reagan sold Iran weapons during the Iran-Iraq war and Halliburton has been operating there since the 70's. If Iran is so bad, let the Reagan worshippers explain why Ollie North, using Israel as an intermediary, sold them arms.

Reign of Reason said...

Exactly - each time I bring up Iran-contra to Reagan worshipers get quiet...

Our policies are always self-serving: but the republicans but the hypocritical-icing on that cake better than anyone else.

Intellectual Insurgent said...

Indeed, Iran has mellowed quite a bit in the last decade. The mullahs who were running the show during Reagan's time were far more fanatical than those in power today.

Capt. Fogg said...

I assume everyone remembers Muhhammed Mussadegh and that the Shah, with the help of the west overthrew democracy in Iran.

D'Souza should admit that he supports tyrants as a better alternative to Democracy if he wants to blame "Liberals" for not supporting the Shah. Tyranny does work and can preserve the peace for periods of time, but pretending to support democracy and to oppose tyrants as we have been doing in Iraq doesn't work if you look at what we did in Iran - and in Viet Nam for that matter. Was Kissinger a "liberal" for insisting that we could not allow countries to ruin themselves by having elections?

He's just a pop historian, selecting phrases and snippets to feed the hunger of the right for some kind of justification for their pathological anger.

Reign of Reason said...

"Pop historian" -- I like that phrase...

I think I'll be using it in the future to describe these guys...

Thanks CAPT...

Capt. Fogg said...

I've got better words to describe these "historians" but I'd probably get arrested. . .