Letters to a Young Conservative

Rating:
Summary: Political romanticism
Review: Among the many rather peculiar claims made by Dinesh D'Souza in his "Letters to a Young Conservative," there is one that I find particular striking. D'Souza asserts that whereas people go into business because they desire money, they go into Academia because they desire power. This implies, first of all, that a desire for power doesn't play a role in the desire for money, and, secondly, that the desire for power plays a more essential role in academia than in other professions. Both the first and second claim are, at the very least, rather odd. Money is clearly not an end in itself; it exists principally as an abstract representation for the labor of other people. If you have money, you can purchase other people's labor - either directly, by paying wages to an employee or a servant - or by buying a commodity, which itself contains an accumulation of social labor. Now even if we assume that this labor is entirely uncoerced and free, it is still clear that the right to claim other people's labor to one's own ends is a form of power. Unless businessmen have no other desire than to wallow day and night in a vault filled with gold, we must assume that their desire for money is also a desire for power.
If we are not to suppose that D'Souza is a complete fool, there is only one way we can interpret what he means by this. Of all the manifold forms of human power (over desires, over wills, over bodies, over nature, over machines), he must regard only one of these to be power in the emphatic sense; namely, the form of power that is particular to the Academic profession. What is this then? Since the political power of an academic is slight, since they do not have the power over emotions and desires claimed by the mass media, since lawyers and advertisers (not to speak of politicians) are far better at befuddling the minds of the masses with sophisms, and since elementary and high school teachers have more influence over forming the basic prejudices and presuppositions of citizens, there is only one possibility left: the power to persuade and convince through argument and discourse, the power to teach people to think. The power, in other words, that people have over other people qua rational beings - and thus not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. While other, less honorable forms of power play a role in Academic life, only this is specific and essential to it. This exemplary form of power, moreover, must stand in the strongest opposition to that which money grants to its possessors. We might understand this as follows: the labor that we purchase involves, implicitly and necessarily, a temporary suspension of will on the part of the seller. If I hire a servant to do my bidding for eight hours a day, then, during this period, he becomes a means to my ends. He ceases to exist qua rational, as an end in himself, and becomes an instrument. If I hire an employee to work in my business, it is no different. He may use his intelligence and creativity to the highest degree, he may enjoy what he is doing, he may want to work even if he did not have to: none of this matters. He is still serving my ends for the duration of his labor. And likewise when I buy some produce or manufactured good, although now I have an indirect rather than direct relation to the labor. What the worker gets in return, in each case, is the same --- money, which confers a like power to purchase the labor of others.
Thus it becomes clear: for D'Souza, power in the true sense consists only in rational persuasion. Contractual relations, and above all, those in which someone freely agrees to temporally suspend his freedom in exchange the means to purchase the labor of others, are not relations of power, but something else. (A real Marxist, and not just a "liberal", would, of course challenge the very freedom and symmetry of this contractual relation, observing that, in relation of capitalists and workers, and very different power is exchanged, and it is not nearly as reciprocal as it may at first seem.) And power, for D'Souza, is a bad thing.
It is easy to see, however, that this conception is deeply flawed - not merely because it disregards the tremendous variety in forms of power, but because it entirely conflates the means and the end, the accidental and the essential. Rational persuasion is superficially and instrumentally asymmetrical: one party persuades and the other is persuaded. Likewise, the University is an extraordinarily hierarchical institution. Yet the end of rational persuasion is a free community of rational beings, who, in good Kantian fashion, regard each other not as means but as ends. The market exchange, mediated by money, is instrumentally equal and reciprocal. Yet its end is the subjection of one person's will to another. And when all relations are mediated by money, the subjugation becomes universal.
I have submitted this remark of D'Souza's to an extended analysis not because I consider his book a worthy target of such critique, --- it is obviously extremely vapid and opportunistic, especially with its kitsch conceit of "mentoring," --- but because I believe it to reveal an extremely characteristic presupposition of the contemporary Conservative Weltanschauung. All human relations are understood as instrumental, - abandoned is the very hope of a society in which people regard each other as ends - and yet the sober analysis of the modes of power and domination is replaced with the ideological conviction that the contractual relations of a "free market economy" are intrinsically non-repressive; that they are, as it were, the immanent realization of utopia. This is political romanticism at its worst.

Rating:
Summary: must read
Review: The mere fact that it has received some 1 star reviews and some 5 star reviews shows that it is a controversial book. Liberals will hate it and conservatives will find great no-nonsense descriptions of the philosophies we uphold so strongly. His writing style makes it a relatively easy read for anyone.

Rating:
Summary: Advice for conservatives: read more, write less.
Review: In his "Letters," D'Souza contrasts the authentic liberalism of the Greeks and the Founding Fathers with the principles of New Deal: he seems to think that Franklin Roosevelt is to blame for the belief that true political freedom is only possible if one possesses the necessities of life. This is at best a flagrant distortion. For the Greeks ' or at least for Plato (in the Laws) and Aristotle ' the good state requires that its citizens have ample means to provide for themselves without having to resort to illiberal occupations (such as business, trade). When Plato (or, more precisely, the Athenian stranger) sets out the laws for a well governed, though not ideal, state, he is insistent on the need to prevent the formation of great disparities in wealth. In Classical Greek thought, "freedom" was never understood in terms of abstract rights or as an inherent quality of a human being, but principally as the condition of somewhat who, not having to direct all his energies to the bare necessities of life and not consumed by the inherently slavish desire for possessions and pleasures, is able to devote himself to the political life of the state and to the cultivation of his body and mind.
No less troubling is D'Souza's interpretation of Rousseau: faith in the intrinsic goodness of human nature is practically a common-place of the Enlightenment and hardly Rousseau's invention. It is opposed not to the Greek, but to the Christian tradition, with its doctrine of original sin. It is, indeed, implicit in Aristotle's ethical theory: humans are by nature rational animals, and virtuous actions are those that accord with reason. Those who are not merely intemperate but bestial are not bad human beings, but scarcely human beings at all ' aberrations of human nature. Rousseau's theory of "society" and its relation to "nature", his emphasis on pedagogy, his criticism of the corrupting effect of the arts and sciences, in fact all represent a return to an extremely Greek conception of politics. Good laws make good human beings, and one of the greatest responsibilities of the city-state is the proper formation of the character of youths, and the education of the passions (which is Rousseau's basic concern) stands at its very heart.
Conservatives like D'Souza like to don the mantel of the Western Tradition. Perhaps they should try reading it for a change.

Rating:
Summary: The usual silly sophistry from "Distort D'Newza"
Review: D'Souza reprises his role as the Gunga Din of the far right-wing. His knowledge of American history, politics, literature and culture is so slim as to be laughable. Those very conservatives who feather his nest are the very same people who fought tooth-and-nail against the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, which eliminated racial and ethnic discrimination in U.S. immigration policies - and without which, D'Souza himself probably would have been denied the right to be here.

Rating:
Summary: Skip this Latest Conservative Clone Book
Review: Have you read either of Rush Limbaugh's books? How about Bill Bennett's Why We Fight, Ann Coulter's Slander, Dan Flynn's Why the Left Hates America, or Sean Hannity's Let Freedom Ring? If so, save your money and skip this one. While recycling is supposed to be a liberal obsession, it's conservatives who keep rehashing the same old book. Each comprises a few essays on haggard "hot-button" topics like feminism, media bias, and affirmative action in which the most outrageous things said by any leftist are quoted and then generalized to all liberals.
In fact Letters, which reads like it was knocked out over a three-day weekend (Kirkus Reviews observed it looked like it was written "in a hurry for money"), mostly retreads D'Souza's own previous books.

Yes, all of these issues are important and the general liberal position is wrong on every one. But none of these breezy books tells you anything you can't get from listening to a few hours of Rush or Ollie North. Like talk radio, they don't even make a pretense of informing; they just preach to the converted.

D'Souza's gimmick here is that he's appealing to youth; but all of the vast right-wing clone-spiracy creeds are written for the proverbial fifth-grade reading level. His general gimmick is that his books are special because he's a "person of color," as he puts it. In fact, he's just a dark-skinned Caucasian exploiting the same race card he so splendidly ripped in The End of Racism. And that's the real shame here, that this poor little pamphlet comes from a former true scholar who once displayed so much promise. How sad that he's become just another "knock-em out for quick bucks" hack.

Rating:
Summary: common sense conservatism
Review: What amazed me most about this book was the amount of pure common sense that D'souza uses to debunk liberal beliefs. It made me wonder "Why didn't I think of that?" D'souza's arguments prove through very logical reasoning that conservatism is the best means to keep our country successful, while liberalism can only hurt it.

On the back cover of the book, Sean Hannity wrote a recommendation saying "Every conservative should own a copy of this book." I disagree, every conservative and every LIBERAL should own this book. Although I think that most liberals will have trouble reading this book. If all my beliefs and values were being systematically debunked right in front of my eyes, I too would have trouble stomaching the truth.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand the myths of liberalism and the truths of conservatism.

Rating:
Summary: Mr. D'Souza Pens Another Success
Review: I have recently become a big fan of Dinesh D'Souzas writings. After reading his book, "What's So Great About America", I needed to read more. So I bought this book. I am only on Chaper 3, and am thoroughly impressed again. He is such an intelligent author. He is very educated in what he is writing, and you find yourself agreeing out loud with every sentence written. His thinking is so logical, ethical and impressive - and if we could just make liberals read his work, they would turn Conservative so fast, your head would spin.

Rating:
Summary: D'Souza does it again!
Review: In this slim yet strong new book, "Letters to a Young Conservative," Dinesh D'Souza presents a discussion aimed to those entering the liberal bastion of academia. The reader benefits from the author's political experience from his days as founder of the Dartmouth Review, to his work as domestic policy analyst under Ronald Reagan.

D'Souza covers a wide array of topics that a student will likely hear on campus from the true nature of political correctness to the causes it champions such as affirmative action, abortion, gun control, anti-globalization, etc. D'Souza can be amusing and irreverant in his descriptions and stories, but is always successful in exposing the liberal agenda truthfully and accurately.

Although D'Souza could have expanded his discussion on certain areas, "Letters to a Young Conservative" is a great start for anyone who seeks a broader understanding of politics and the rationale behind various political issues.

Rating:
Summary: Thoughtful Survey of the American Conservative Synthesis
Review: Mr. D'Souza has rendered an invaluable service to all thoughtful Americans, no matter their political persuasion. In direct, simple, warm, and often funny language, Mr. D'Souza has imposed a fluid yet orderly structure on the landscape of ideological discussion in contemporary democracy. He does this without a single personal attack or character assassination, and also notably by constructing careful arguments, rather than by appeal to authority. This book will inspire conservatives, persuade border-dwellers, haunt decent liberals and infuriate those whose liberalism stems from self-righteous indignation. Mr. D'Souza is also virtually unique in the world of popular political writing in weaving a feasible compromise between common-sense or realism-oriented conservative impulses and a healthy respect for the intellectual and literary tradition of conservatism. An honest reader, approaching from a position of good faith, will find this book hard to put down.

Rating:
Summary: Fine introduction; fine review.
Review: Mr. D'Souza has written a fine introduction to conservatism as we find it in the contemporary era. As one volume in the interesting series, The Art of Mentoring (from Basic Books), D'Souza addresses his conception of conservative politics to a young college student thru a series of brief, witty, and well-informed epistles. As a man who has had an impact on campus conservatism, first as a contributor to the nearly legendary Dartmouth Review and later thru his own books (ILLIBERAL EDUCATION and THE END OF RACISM among others), D'Souza is well-placed to polemicize conservatism for a college audience. Recommended for young conservatives and libertarians, and for older ones who may have forgotten the fiery, early arguments which brought them to their positions--the Right and correct positions, I hasten to add!