Smearing Dinesh D'Souza

There may be a good rebuttal to Dinesh D’Souza’s theory that what motivates Barack Obama is an anti-colonial mindset that he absorbed from his search for the father who abandoned him, but this article by Shikha Dalmia isn’t it.

First, anyone who accuses her opponent of using ad hominem arguments should have some hesitation about using them herself. What then to make of her beginning her story with an anecdote about having dinner with a

“conservative professor”

 whose comments she then characterizes as

“the crazy ruminations of a kooky academic.”

 Now I was not at that dinner but I have my doubts that the victim of her insult said that

“… Obama communicated with a cabal of fellow America haters in secret hand gestures.”

And how’s this for an ad hominem:

“Writers these days are supposed to cultivate a niche, and D’Souza seems to have homesteaded the intellectual goofiness spot all for himself.”

Or this bit of fact-free analysis about Newt Gingrich:

“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.”

 

But enough of the name calling. What is the meat of Dalmia’s argument? There isn’t much in her article beyond the ad homs so let’s list them.

She cites as an example the

“… $2 billion loan that the administration handed via the Export-Import bank to encourage off-shore drilling in Brazil.”

She characterizes this as a factual error on D’Souza’s part because none of the bank’s directors were appointed by the Obama administration. But the Export-Import bank simply does not operate in a political vacuum. The purpose of the bank is to “assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services,” something that seems to be lacking in a loan to Brazil for off-shore drilling. It would be interesting to see where the loan was initiated and who was involved in its approval. The issue of the board of directors is a red herring.

She mischaracterizes or misunderstands anti-colonialism. It is not characterized by a desire to avoid contact with developed countries, but by a desire not to have former colonial powers continue to exercise control over their former colonies via economic means. Anti-colonial activists want the local people to own and control their own companies and businesses. An example of this is the expropriation of Aramco by the sheiks and kings of “Arabia.” They did not want to shut the oil wells or have the West stop using petroleum, they wanted to own the wells and control the prices. And that’s what they did. So it’s totally off the mark for Dalmia to say:

“If Obama were seriously motivated by a moral desire to protect poor countries from being ruined by excessive American consumption then his biggest priority would be to rein in this consumption. But that is the exact opposite of what he has done since assuming office. His entire economic agenda is one big and desperate attempt to boost American consumption.”

She is mistaking autarky with anti-colonialism. Take it from the North Koreans; it is not nearly the same.

Dalmia uses the Obama administration’s forays into economic stimulation as proof that he’s no anti-colonialist. What’s most disconcerting for both the Democrats in Congress and the American people is that these efforts have been virtually useless in stimulating either employment or consumption. I have to count myself among the ones who are surprised that you could flood the country with close to a trillion dollars in cash and have virtually no measurable effect on economic activity. It’s when you look behind the numbers and see where the money is actually going that you realize that much of it was actually spend to keep public employees on the job. Keeping in mind that the anti-colonial leaders of the former European colonies were mostly well educated socialists or Marxists who studied in Europe or the US, and ended up in government jobs. it’s really not that surprising that if Obama is animated by anti-colonial attitudes he would look first to protect government workers.

In the end, we get the virtually obligatory accusation that D’Souza is accusing Obama of being Muslim. This is found nowhere in D’Souza’s article, but – like some kind of a tic - it has to be included as part of a smear. Others are also finding things in the article that simply isn’t there. David Frum accuses D’Souza of promoting the “birther” nonsense and says

“When last was there such a brazen outburst of race baiting in the service of partisan politics at the national level? George Wallace took more care to sound race-neutral.”

If you look in D’Souza’s article try to find the part where it says that Obama wasn’t born in the US or that he’s a Muslim or a racist you won’t find it. But that’s all right. The accusation is enough. If you doubt it, check out your Journolist membership.