Friday, September 17, 2010

Dinesh D'Souza on "How Obama Thinks"

I have heard some hate and discontent being raised from some of our progressive friends from the left regarding Dinesh D'Souza's most recent essay published on Forbes.com regarding President Obama and how he thinks.  I finally got around to reading the article and found it to be very insightful and quite brilliant.  Whereas I have heard cries of "racism" and other such rhetoric from the progressive front, I found nothing within the article to substantiate that claim. 

Quite the contrary, I think Mr. D'Souza did an excellent job in his research of the story and was able to articulate a very convincing theory as to what motivates our president in some of his more bizarre actions of governance.  On the whole, I think D'Souza absolutely nailed it in his explanation.

I would highly recommend reading the somewhat lengthy article and see if you do not agree.

How Obama ThinksThe President isn't exactly a socialist. So what's driving his hostility to private enterprise? Look to his roots.  By Dinesh D'Souza

4 comments:

Annie said...

An excellent article and very informative. Now, if we could just get the others to read it and see it's truth.

T. Paine said...

Therein lies the problem, ma'am. Even if you can get some of our more partisan progressive friends to read the article, they often glob onto things that simply aren't there... such as Mr. D'Souza's comments regarding President Obama are racist.

Often times, people won't acknowledge facts or the plausibility of a strongly-supported theory if it contradicts their own preconceived political opinions.

The true irony is that they often accuse conservatives of being close-minded and un-objective.

Dave Splash said...

I'm disappointed in you, Paine. Really, I thought you were better than this.

This is racism masked as some sort of intellectual argument. Nothing else. I have read every word of that piece of filth, and found nothing compelling or accurate.

Masking the presidency of Barack Obama in an argument about Kenyan tribesman fighting Western colonialists is a neat, pseudo-intellectual way to inject race into a debate where it is not warranted. It is shameful and dangerous. And completely without any merit.

Pres. Obama is the most publicly vetted man in world history, yet your side continues to want to "uncover" some secret aspect of his life that makes him less than a real American, and ultimately, an illegitimate president. Consider this strike three. Or four. Or ten. It's hard to keep track since you guys just keep making up new things every week to inject into the debate like a virus.

For the life of me, I do not understand why you on the right can't just criticize the President on policy without having to resort to this nativist, racist crap.

It shows D'Souza and his defenders are so insecure in their own beliefs that they can't simply debate them on the merits. They need to ascribe some sinister motive or un-American mindset in order to make their points. It's weak and anti-intellectual and shows to me and other liberals that the modern right would rather attack opponents as being an "other" instead of articulating their own philosophy and ideas.

T. Paine said...

Splash, I respectfully submit to you that you have a strange definition of racism then, sir.

D'Souza does not denigrate or make unflattering sterotypical comments. He stated facts that help to put forth a theory of why President Obama thinks as he does.

He calls Obama's father a Kenyan anti-colonial. Is that racist or an accurate statement of fact, sir?

I don't see where race really even had a strong relevant part to the debate or article. Indeed, even Dinesh D'Souza is a man of color, so you argument strikes me as somewhat ludicrous if you are basing it simply on the color of skin pigmentation.

Often times offspring will glean and hold onto some of their parents politics and ideology. President Obama seemingly assumed much of what his father honestly thought and fought for accordingly.

It really has nothing to do with race. It is a matter of context. Would it matter if the same facts were stated of Obama and his father if they were of Philipino, Native American, or even Irish ancestry?

Each could claim similar anti-colonial attitudes justifiably.

The article, when put in context, was not about his father's color or the fact that he was Kenyan. It was about his understandable ideology based on where he lived, sir.