|
This means that the conservative must stop being conservative." (p25)Fourth, "religion is primary source of morality." (p111). Hart suggested a tattoo on their buttocks stating "abandon all hope, ye who enter here." Nice mentor. 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. 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. Hart, who liked to interrupt colleagues in faculty meetings by churning a noisy wooden rotary device. The question is whether women should be educated at all." Compelling and funny stuff. 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. 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).
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. 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. 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). 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. One such premise is the addition of "virtue" to the classical liberal belief in religious, expressive, economic and political freedom. Most modern liberals support the use of force in the appropriate circumstances. This point may be used to justify the dictatorships of people such as Somoza, Pinochet and Marcos (p206). This book provides pithy descriptions of modern liberalism (not classical liberalism, which overlaps quite considerably with modern conservatism), conservatism and libertarianism.
To victim of aids, Dr. Such wit. Dr. 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). "The problem with liberals is that they never give bayonets a chance." (p209).
One of the columnists of the review quipped "The question is not whether women should be educated at Dartmouth. 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". D'Souza also became involved with the Dartmouth review and liked its tactics and humor: "We were not above ad hominem attacks". 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.
Hart, who wore buttons saying things like "soak the poor." Dr. I'll digress slightly and point out this often used technique in the book, which is oversimplifying or misstating liberal positions. And if there is prevailing liberal culture, then "one must seek to undermine it, to thwart it, to destroy it at the root level. Sixth, Violence in the course of legitimate aims is necessary and appropriate.
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. D'Souza can do best. 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. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand conservative reasoning, whether they are a liberal, conservative, or (especially) politically undecided. 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.
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 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. Great, academia hard at work. 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. 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". Yes, liberals, I felt persecuted in many of my classes where we were asked to openly speak our beliefs and opinions. Being a young conservative, it became very easy to feel persecuted in my beliefs. I shared some of my own beliefs regarding free enterprise, support for the 2nd amendment, low taxes, and small government.
This is a great book for those seeking an intellectual way and good reasons to be conservative in today's culture.
In but maybe 20 pages, D'Souza turned me into an adamant fan of Lincoln. In short, I liked both liberal ideals and conservative ideals, and wanted to take both sides.D'Souza destroyed my addiction to fence-hopping. Before, I was skeptical about President Abraham Lincoln. I agreed with every sentence, and only put the book down to get a drink.
Dinesh D'Souza is an Indian immigrant who served as an author of the Dartmouth Review during his days at the college, and subsequently became a policy analyst for President Ronald Reagan. Many conservatives are afraid to make the jump to the right-wing, because they still have doubts in the back of their mind that maybe welfare is better for society; that maybe affirmative action is necessary to end racial disparity; that maybe gun control protects our freedoms. I admired that he freed the slaves, but did not fancy the fact that he was racist himself; or that his war efforts were so destructive; or that he imprisoned so many people during wartime. He is one of the leaders of modern intellectual conservatism, much to the ire of old Dartmouth alumni.When I picked up "Letters to a Young Conservative", I described myself as a "skeptical conservative".
Let me give you an example. If you are one of those, I strongly recommend you read this book to cross the chasm. I supported private industry, but also liked minimum wage; I supported tax cuts, but also wanted more welfare spending; I opposed affirmative action, but only because it was being mismanaged. He's an excellent, witty writer; even the sections of the book which themes I took no interest in prior, such as feminism, held my attention the whole time.
|
