Letters to a Young Conservative by Dinesh D'Souza
Published January 24, 2004
If you are seeking a guide to the basic arguments and ideas behind modern political conservatism you could do worse that Dinesh D'Sousa's Letters to a Young Conservative. It has a number of advantages:
- It is relatively short at under 230 pages.
- It is broken down into short, easy to read chapters on major topics.
- The prose is lively and conversational - again easy to read.
- The issues discussed are topical and relevant.
It does have a few drawbacks however:
- It is aimed at college students and so involves a world that is often quite different than the "real world." (Being a conservative on campus is often quite different than being an adult conservative)
- It is focused on politics and policy more than foundational principles.
- The prose is conversational (if you are looking for a more serious tone that could be a drawback).
Still, all in all, I think it is an useful and enjoyable read. The book uses the device, made obvious by the title, of D'Souza exchanging letters with a college student that attended one of his speeches. We get to read only the D'Souza side of the correspondence obviously. Using this device, the author gives his advice on a range of subjects. D'Souza starts with his basic views on liberalism and conservatism - where they come from, where they are going - and then proceeds to touch on a variety of political and cultural hot button issues from political correctness, multiculturalism, feminism, and education to gun control, abortion, gay marriage, and immigration. On each issues he outlines the ideas he believes are at stake, discuss he social and political ramifications, and often touches on effective ways to engage campus liberals on these issues. In this way the book is sort of a guided tour through the ideas and issues involved in espousing a conservative worldview in a hostile environment like a college campus. As such, it is an quick and easy read. The chapters are loosely connected but could easily be read separately if needed.
In setting out what it means to be a conservative D'Souza describes the changing use of the word liberal. For D'Souza American conservatism is an outgrowth of the classical liberalism of the Founding Fathers. American Conservatism is different than European conservatism because it is "modern" and "American." It is also different because America is a "revolutionary nation." This means that "being conservative in America means conserving the principles of the American Revolution." Added to this mix is a particular conception of virtue and its role:
What unifies the vast majority of conservatives is the belief that their are moral standards in the universe and that living up to them is the best way to have a full and happy life.
D'Souza contrast this conservatism with a liberalism gone awry; a liberalism based on the "sovereignty of the inner self." At base, D'Souza asserts, the difference is a substantive disagreement about what constitutes the good life. These differing views of the good life come from different conceptions of human nature. Liberals adopt Rousseau's faith in the inherent goodness of human nature while conservatives hold to a more calvinistic view of original sin. D'Souza also distinguishes conservatism from libertarianism. He describes libertarianism as a philosophy of government as opposed to conservatism as a philosophy of life. He sums it up succinctly:
Conservatives defend freedom not because they believe in the right to do as you please, but because they believe freedom is the precondition for virtue. It is only when people choose freely that they can choose the good. Without freedom there is no virtue: A coerced virtue is no virtue at all
- Letters to a Young Conservative by Dinesh D'Souza
- Published: January 24, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Books
- Filed Under: Books: Nonfiction, Books: Philosophy, Books: Politics and Affairs
- Writer: Kevin Holtsberry
- Kevin Holtsberry's BC Writer page
- Kevin Holtsberry's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
DC- This statement is quite conVENient: This obvious bigot statement will make me avoid this book and writer at all costs.
You made a completely unrelated statement out as if it were a racial slur, then refuse to consider the thoughts of a racist. Oh, PLEASE.
I haven't read this particular book yet, but D'Souza is a sharp thinker, and totally honest. HE would never be taking cheap racial potshots like this, I can tell you that.
I haven't read this particualr book, but I'm aware, by virtue of his earlier work, of the nature of his arguments. I will assume that this book only offers more of the same.His earlier work is all pseudo-intellectual propaganda masquerading as stuff to be taken seriously. A hodgepodge of racism,servility,confusion and stupidity;in an easily digestable format guaranteed to go in well with those people who are in one hundred percent agreement with his views.For the rest of us the book will seem like something written during the darker days of man's existence--when crudeness
and vulgarity were to be expected.
What unifies the vast majority of conservatives is the belief that there are moral standards in the universe and that living up to them is the best way to have a full and happy life.
D'Souza contrasts this conservatism with a liberalism gone awry; a liberalism based on the "sovereignty of the inner self."
I haven't read the book or anything else by him, but as a conservative, I think the above two statements sum up conservative thought pretty well and our view of liberalism. It's not so much about politics as it is about how we live (or at least aspire to live) our lives.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/11995)
"In short, liberalism has become the party of anti-Americanism, economic plunder, and immorality."
With that statement, how can anyone take this book seriously? Liberalism/Socialism is far from bankrupt. Nearly all industrialized countries, with comparable education level, standard of living, working environment, health as the USA are LIBERAL/SOCIALIST. I serously doubt these evil axis-of-liberal countries are conspiring to conquer the USA anytime soon, no matter what Dineh seems to believe.
This obveous bigot statement will make me avoid this book and writer at all costs. It amount to including in a book on black, white race relations in the USA, with an opening statement of: "In short blacks have become the race of sloth, welfare, crime and ignorance." (j/k) Something as worthy of taking seriously of intelligent and credible discourse and discussion as a book on race relations published by the KKK.
(I saw Dinesh on CSPAN. He is an eloquant speaker and usually sounds like a Jeffersonial Libertarian, but he sometimes throws out statements are radical deviations from American tradition and history (neo-conservative) out of left field with no tradition or history to back them up, like he said it is absolutely morally and legally justifed for the USA to invade any country with a non-elected government because they automatically have no legitimacy. Would Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and Iran be legal? (And also USA could be considered a target, since GWB was made leader without support of a majority of voters on election day in 2000.)