Letters to a Young Conservative

Rating:
Summary: Liberals still don't get it.
Review: I just received D'Souza's book, so I haven't had the chance to read every chapter. The few I have read were very informative, entertaining, and on target concerning the main differences between liberals and conservatives. D'Souza's wry sense of humor is definitely a plus. It's interesting, but hardly startling, that those who gave the book one star are the sort of liberal who resorts to "postmodernist gibberish" and ad hominem attacks when confronted with facts and common sense. The very things Mr. D'Souza says liberals resort to when they want to avoid hearing the truth about themselves. Referring to Mr. D'Souza as "The Gunga Din of Conservatism" was supposed to be insulting, I guess. I gather the person who wrote that mistakenly believes that Gunga Din was a member of an oppressed minority in need of protection from evil, conservative white men. If so, then he is sadly ignorant of both Kipling AND D'Souza. I feel this is an excellent book that should, but won't, be required reading for all college freshmen BEFORE they are assaulted with liberal hogwash by their left-wing professors. This book deserves SIX stars!

Rating:
Summary: Triumphalist Neocon Drivel
Review: In her book Slander, Ann Coulter tries to demonstrate the liberal bias in the publishing industry by complaining that Dinesh D'Souza received a mere 150,000-dollar advance on his latest book, Letters to a Young Conservative. Regardless of whether or not Coulter is right about the bias, she could not have chosen a worse book to demonstrate her point.
Letters to a Young Conservative is a collection of 31 letters to an imaginary conservative student named Chris. D'Souza enlightens Chris on what conservatives should think about public policy, philosophy, and history. Although he takes a genuinely conservative stand on some issues, he usually defends them with clichés like "more guns mean less crime" or on leftist terms. For example, while he complains about the "self-esteem hoax," his principle complaint about affirmative action is that it "increases doubts of black capacity." On many other issues he simply takes liberal or irrational positions.
One letter implores Chris to avoid the "libertarian temptation." He explains that libertarians believe that freedom is the greatest end, if not the only end, and that for the libertarian philosophy to work, one must believe that "human nature is so good that it is virtually flawless." D'Souza claims that a pure libertarian would have no problem if everyone in America would become a pornographer. Given that the libertarians seem to be totally amoral and on the side of the Left in what is the "root" difference between liberals and conservatives (their view of human nature), one wonders why a "vast programmatic agreement" would exist between libertarians and conservatives.
The reason is because D'Souza greatly misinterprets libertarianism. As Lord Acton said, liberty is the highest political end, not the meaning of life. As D'Souza acknowledges, libertarianism is only a political philosophy, not a way to view the world. Therefore, there is nothing inherent in libertarian philosophy to suggest that libertarians should be culturally libertine.
In another letter, D'Souza accuses Gore Vidal of being anti-American because he questions the benevolence of American foreign policy. One of Vidal's latest books is called Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, but in D'Souza's case, it could be called Perpetual War for the Perpetual Lesser Evil. According to the lesser evil doctrine, which is our "central principle of foreign policy," America "is always justified in supporting a bad regime to overthrow a regime that is even worse," regardless of whether the worse regime was installed by America in the first place.
D'Souza tells us we must "give bayonets a chance" and impose democracy across the world. He celebrates the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan and the firebombing of German civilians, because it gave them democracy. And he has the gall to accuse liberals of lacking the "practical moral reasoning that foreign policy requires."
D'Souza isn't much better when it comes to immigration. He makes a few tired claims that immigrants are good for the economy because they do the jobs Americans won't. However, he refuses to address the burden they disproportionately add to the welfare state. He simply says to get rid of the welfare. Similarly, he rejects the cultural argument against immigration, by claiming that most of the problems with assimilation are due to white liberals. This may be partially true, but given that we are not likely to get rid of multiculturalism or the welfare state anytime soon, why would D'Souza want more immigration in the meantime?
Perhaps the worst letter is the one where Chris asks "Was Lincoln a Bad Guy?" Chris was shocked to see conservatives criticize Lincoln. "Wasn't he a Republican?" he naively asks. D'Souza takes this as an opportunity to address the attacks made upon Lincoln by those on the Right and Left. D'Souza creates a straw man who says that the war wasn't over slavery, and so Lincoln was wrong to stop secession. To prove these people wrong, he simply gives a few quotes by Alexander Stephens and John C. Calhoun that defended slavery. This is beside the point. Even if slavery was the reason why the South seceded, it clearly was not the reason why the North tried to stop them. Lincoln said time after time that the war was to preserve the union and not to end slavery. So the issue is whether or not the South had a right to secede. D'Souza's only arguments against secession is that it is impossible for a constitutional democracy to function if states could secede, and that no party can unilaterally withdraw out of a contract. If this were true, a battered wife would not be allowed to leave her abusive husband unless he gave his consent.
D'Souza refuses to look at Lincoln with any sort of historic perspective. His straw man accuses Lincoln of creating the modern welfare state, something that no prominent Lincoln critic has argued. However, many have argued the political centralization that took place under Lincoln's presidency made the New Deal and Great Society possible. Similarly, rather than admit that Lincoln's politically incorrect views on race "were a product of his time," he tries to pretend that clearly racist statements by Lincoln were somehow anti-racist.
D'Souza outdoes himself in a number of other ways. He praises Bill Clinton for his commitment to NAFTA and the WTO. He tells the Republicans to play down social issues to appeal to rich white yuppies, and he celebrates the ouster of Augusto Pinochet.
Perhaps I am being too harsh on D'Souza. I assumed that as a young conservative, I was part of the book's target audience, but if this is what passes for conservatism these days, I am definitely no conservative.

my review from Lewrockwell.com

Rating:
Summary: Preaching to the choir
Review: I am a conservative.

Dinesh D'Souza's fine book is indeed another one that is "preaching to the choir". Any conservative is likely to enjoy this book. And while the views submitted by the author are legitimate, they are unlikely to convince anyone to change his/her mind about political leanings.

First of all, liberals have their own views about things. They are not likely to be persuaded, regardless of how well-written and clear the conservative's views are.

Secondly, those most likely to benefit form this book - the people without political leanings - are not likely to read political books, anyway. Those of us who think deeply about politics have already reached an opinion one way or another.

But for those who are just beginning their search for truth, this is a fine book. I would recommend reading this book, and then reading something liberal, and asking yourself which appeals to you the most.

I have read dozens of political books during the last year and this one ranks as one of my favorites.

Dinesh D'Souza clearly loves the USA, but laments the society forced upon us by the liberal elite.

Rating:
Summary: The world needs more "Dartmouth Reviews"
Review: In its stated purpose of "mentoring" college-aged, or younger, conservatives, this book does a fine job in introducing its target audience to many of the distinctive elements of traditional conservative thought. It's not a perfect book, and maybe someday I'll write a column somewhere about how D'Souza fundamentally mis-states the libertarian philosophy, and libertarian beliefs on some key issues. In that section, at least, he does his young friend "Chris" a real disservice. It's only because that's such a relatively small part of the book that I'm not downgrading my ranking more.

But apart from that (and the author's annoying idolatry -- it's not too strong a word -- of Lincoln), there is much here to learn from and enjoy. If campus conservatives can arm themselves with the information -- and also the techniques -- D'Souza passes along here, the political atmosphere of our colleges will be much improved, and much more entertaining.

Rating:
Summary: Arguments for the Masses.
Review: Occasionally a book comes along that validates the old cliché about being so good that you can't put it down. Dinesh D'Souza's Letters to a Young Conservative is absolutely one such book. In it he writes a series of letters, thirty-one in all, to a fictional young undergraduate conservative named Chris. The premise is that Chris has written D'Souza after seeing him speak at his university. Chris is overwhelmed by the leftist politically correct atmosphere at his college and D'Souza comforts him by giving counsel on every imaginable topic in the realm of ideas. His arguments draw on nearly twenty-five years of street fighting within the conservative movement. This work is part of a series by Basic Books of established older masters offering advice to the young, and includes Christopher Hitchens' outstanding Letters to a Young Contrarian.
D'Souza's book is a moving, exquisite pep-talk for all right-minded thinkers regardless of age. It is not an explosive tirade and instead is a series of quiet, rational arguments designed to illustrate that anything is possible if one is reflective and patient. The work is truly deceiving due to its accessibility and style. D'Souza is not verbose and writes highly comprehensible sentences. The clarity of the text is problematic as you may plow through a few pages before realizing that D'Souza has just written something quite profound. As a warning, you should not begin reading this hardback if you have vocational or personal interests that cannot be immediately neglected because the enlightenment the book issues is highly addictive.
The material is serious for the most part but there are a few occasions where the reader may find his or her self laughing out loud after ingesting the exploits of D'Souza and his college peers who worked at the samizdat, The Dartmouth Review. They were one of the first, if not the very first, alternative conservative college publications in the country and the militancy of the left at Dartmouth propelled D'Souza to their ranks even though he initially entered college as a liberal.
He and his friends bait the existing power hierarchy repeatedly but on no occasion so humorously as when they protest the university's expenditures on the Gay Students' Association. The Dartmouth Review viewed this as being inappropriate and discriminatory as it was awarding funds to individuals based on sexual orientation only. Their way of dealing with the quandary was quite novel to say the least.
D'Souza and peers, to illustrate the ridiculousness of such organizations, formed The Dartmouth Bestiality Society and even appointed a president and zookeeper. They then went to the dean to ask for support but the dean responded that no support was necessary as there was no interest in such activities at Dartmouth. The President of the Bestiality Society responded with, "That may be true, Dean Hanson, but it is because of centuries of discrimination! Those of us who are inclined toward animals have been systematically excluded and ostracized. Our organization will provide a supportive atmosphere in which people of our particular sexual orientation are treated with respect. At Dartmouth...let us put an end to beast phobia." [p.28] Their method may be extreme but it teaches the moral that ridicule is a potent force when dealing with the absurdity that is multi-cultural theory and diversity in America. They may not have won the battle but nearly everyone held the Gay Students' Association in a different light after their proposal.
D'Souza has some very original arguments in the book that should help the reader in dealing with the ever present emotional tirades thrown by liberals. This reviewer's favorite chapter was the one on the temperament of conservatives versus that of liberals. The most important point in the book, and certainly the argument that the author most needed to make, is that conservatives are a far happier lot than liberals. This is due to the fact that we have already embraced the realities of our world and the inherent flaws within human nature. As we view ourselves as being part of a historical continuum, we do not attempt to wrestle with forces that cannot change so we accept our limited place in the scheme of things and never experience emotional meltdown when we discover that legislation cannot alter the flaws of humanity.
This book is a recording of quintessential songs to be learned and sung by any who are a David beneath the boot of the leftist Goliath. This Goliath has the media as a sword and the universities and the public schools as his spear, but with the help of D'Souza, independent media outlets, and patriotic fervor, we may be able to stone this unruly Goliath back into the bronze age.

Rating:
Summary: Preaching to the choir
Review: I am a conservative.

Dinesh D'Souza's fine book is indeed another one that is "preaching to the choir". Any conservative is likely to enjoy this book. And while the views submitted by the author are legitimate, they are unlikely to convince anyone to change his/her mind about political leanings.

First of all, liberals have their own views about things. They are not likely to be persuaded, regardless of how well-written and clear the conservative's views are.

Secondly, those most likely to benefit form this book - the people without political leanings - are not likely to read political books, anyway. Those of us who think deeply about politics have already reached an opinion one way or another.

But for those who are just beginning their search for truth, this is a fine book. I would recommend reading this book, and then reading something liberal, and asking yourself which appeals to you the most.

I have read dozens of political books during the last year and this one ranks as one of my favorites.

Dinesh D'Souza clearly loves the USA, but laments the society forced upon us by the liberal elite.

Rating:
Summary: Best Book for Young College Students
Review: D'Souza's writing is refreshing and enlightening - any student who feels adrift in the liberal tide at his or her university will read this book and find a soulmate. This is where it all begins, after all. D'Souza makes being a conservative just as strong a conviction as being a Christian or card-carrying Republican, and reminds us that we need be neither to understand and corroborate conservatism. He's inspiring and I hope this book touches you like it did me.

Rating:
Summary: A Polarizing Work
Review: D'Souza is a polarizing figure, like most conservatives: One either likes what he has to say and feels attuned to his sentiment or one totally disagrees with his stances and beliefs. There seems to be no in-between with D'Souza. That aside, he does offer some important advice to his fictional young muse, Chris. It is no surprise that Basic Books chose this collection of letters for the "Art of Mentoring" series. Like most mentors, D'Souza provides his young protégé, really the young persons of tomorrow who might come upon this book, with information, some of it polarized and obviously related to an agenda and yet some of it fair and balanced. This book is a good pick if you're so inclined toward the conservative side, it's an even better pick if you're not. D'Souza explains most conservative reasoning on relevant issues in the cultural and moral fields. Perhaps a more apropos title would have been "Introduction to Conservatism."

Rating:
Summary: Worth debating and the subject of underserved scorn
Review: Take a lot at some of these reviews. They are mean, obnoxious, and typically lack any substance. Anyone with an objective, open mind would not think that this book is homophobic, racist, or any of the other terrible descriptions that it has been labeled. If anything, the responses fit those abjectives. I'm not a raging conservative but my views have shifted dramatically when I've objectively looked at the tactics of the far left. This is a good book. It deserves a look and it should stimulate internal debate. Amazon should screen the reviews for offensive speech. The name calling and racial epithats that some of these reviews contain are appalling. Constructive reviews that offer point and counter-point should be encouraged but, as I'm discovering, those types of reviews require thought and reflection. Calling someone a Nazi or a bigot or a homophobe is much easier I guess. Amazon should be ashamed of itself for letting someone call the author a "Camel Jockey" in a review.

Rating:
Summary: typical right-wing hate speech
Review: This book is a good example of right-wing hate speech. This is the last thing our country needs. the author is a misogynist, homophobe, racist, etc. The Republican party should wake up and run these hatemongers out the their party.