I was browsing through a list of recently released books,
and this title caught my eye. My immediate thought was “oh boy, this should be
good (sarcasm). A book that’s going to talk about how amazing the U.S. is, and
how we can’t survive without it. Because we needed more of those…”. I was
unprepared for what it actually turned out to be – a very eye opening book that
provided a different point of view on many events in the history of the U.S.
I want to start off by saying that the author, Dinesh D’Souza,
is a man who was born in India, came to the U.S. as an exchange student, has a
strong conservative political background and is a Christian. I think all of
these things lend context to his argument. For one, it’s hard to argue that he
is brainwashed to be pro-American considering he didn’t grow up there. However,
he does have reason to discredit Obama, which he does often. Both these things
are important to keep in mind.
He starts off by explaining that the decline of America has
become a policy objective. The American dream is shrinking because some of our
leaders want it to shrink. They plan to rebuild a different type of country.
And the result of this is a powerful, moral critique of America by many people,
who point to three obvious indicators of decline. (1) The American economy is
stagnant and shrinking relative to the growing economies of China, Russia,
India and Brazil. China will be the world’s largest economy by 2016. And
historically, once nations lose their position at the top of the world they
never get it back (I would argue that China is doing exactly that). (2) America
is drowning in debt. China is the world’s largest creditor nation, while the
U.S. is the world’s largest debtor nation. U.S. national debt is bigger than annual
GDP ($17 trillion debt), and the majority of this debt is owed to foreign nations,
leading to a transfer of wealth away from America. (3) America is losing its
position in the world. It is downsizing its nuclear arsenal which leads to less
military dominance, and a loss of hegemony around the world.
While countries are often founded by accident and force,
America was an opportunity to found a nation by reflection and choice. However
all of the above indicators will lead to a sharp drop in America’s standard of
living. At home, Obama has been expanding the power of the state and reducing
the scope of the private sector, while internationally he has been reducing the
footprint of America in the world. The author argues that he does this because
he is an anti-colonialist, and that he got this from his father. The key idea
of anti-colonialism is that the wealth of the west has been obtained by theft. This
is in the similar vein of progressivism, which is a moral critique of
capitalism. He mentions how Obama is influenced by radicals such as Bill Ayers,
who bombed the pentagon and then became a teacher at the University of Illinois,
and others whose basic ideas were to conform and attack from within (act like a
square so they think you are).
He says that America is divided into 2 groups: makers and takers. If the
takers outnumber makers, progressives will continue to win elections. And if
the facts proposed by the progressives are true, then that means America is
founded on theft and plunder, and it continues to sustain its wealth through
these things, which makes America as a nation, morally indefensible. The
extreme progressive view is that America should be destroyed, while the
mainstream progressive remedy is guilt and atonement, which would mean
returning wealth to its rightful owners. They are essentially attempting to
undo America’s crimes, and if necessary, undo America in the process. This is
the progressive case for American suicide, the suicide of a national identity
and a dissolution of the American era. This is anti-Americanism (strong
antagonism to American ideas and institutions) from Americans who know their
country well.
The author lays out this progressive viewpoint and then
begins to refute each of the progressive claims. He begins with the idea that
America ‘stole’ the land it is encompasses. How can one claim to own something
in perpetuity simply by occupying and claiming it? “Owning a piece of land or
property is like occupying a seat in a public theatre. It’s your seat, but only
while you are sitting in it. You don’t own it and even it’s possession comes
with certain duties and obligations” (Cicero’s analogy on the ancient view of
property). “The white man who displaced the Indians also brought with him that
doctrine of property rights – not to mention the courts of law to enforce it –
which ultimately enabled the Indian to challenge the white man’s occupation on
the basis of the white man’s own doctrine” (I think this is incredibly ironic,
the point being that the Indians didn’t have their own property laws and fought
each other all the time for territory). “Human effort converts unowned and
largely useless land into owned and useful property”. This argument explains
that labour is what adds value to land, and we have a right to acquire as much
land as we can ourselves cultivate and develop. The example the author uses is
that of Manhattan. The Indians sold it to the Dutch for $24, but they were not
robbed. ‘Manhattan’ as we know it, is the creation of the new people who built
it, not the original inhabitants who occupied it.
Next he moves on to the idea that America stole part of
Mexico. There are many who argue that America acquired half of Mexico and doesn’t
let Mexicans work their land. Many American latinos want to create a country
made up of northern Mexico and the southwestern U.S., called Aztlan. Others
think that the U.S. and Mexico will become one nation through immigration and
higher Hispanic birth, and that eventually the border will disappear. The
author argues that if America cannot claim title to land by conquest, then
neither can the people from whom is was taken (Hispanics), who themselves took
it from someone else (Indians). From one perspective, the U.S. took half of
Mexico; from another, the U.S. returned half of Mexico which it could have kept
for itself (Mexico started the Mexican war, which the U.S. won after they
captured Mexico city and held it for 9 months). Mexicans who lived in places
now part of the U.S. immediately became U.S. citizens and very few people left
to return to Mexico.
He then talks about the history of Texas which I found very
interesting and also ironic. Apparently Texas separated itself from
Mexico because they were mostly anglos and the government was a tyrant. They
asked if they could join the U.S. as a state but the U.S. said no to admitting them
largely because of northern concerns that the admission of Texas would
strengthen the slave power of the American south. Texas remained an independent
republic for 10 years. They were finally admitted in 1845, settling the border
between Texas and Mexico, which started the Mexican war (ironic
because there is currently a large movement in Texas trying to get it to separate from
the U.S.).
The next idea he tackles is that of slavery. “What is
uniquely western is not slavery, but the abolition of slavery”. No civilization
once dependent on slavery has ever been able to eradicate it, except the
western (J.M. Roberts). He explains that slavery is bad for master and slaves –
it degrades work, so less work is done. There were also black slave owners –
free blacks who owned black slaves (around 3500 in 1830 who collectively owned
more than 10000 black slaves). He also explains that many African countries
were more than happy to trade with slaves, their own people. “One African chief
memorably stated that he wanted 3 things – foodstuffs, alcohol and weapons -
and he had 3 things to exchange for them – men, women and children”. The author
argues that the only reason slavery became controversial in America was because
of the influence of Christianity. The constitution helped work toward abolition
of slavery and thousands of white men died in the civil war to try and free
slaves.
He then discusses segregation. Private companies were
concerned about the higher cost of doing business under segregation.
Conservative segregation was designed to preserve and encourage the self esteem
of black people, to protect them from radicals and the KKK, and many believed
it preferable to lynchings and flaming crosses. “In a perverse way, segregation
created economic opportunity because is kept whites out of businesses and professions
that served the black community”. They had to adapt and they did. However, at
least some of them could have established even more productive enterprises that
served both blacks and whites (the author uses this to explain why there is the
idea of white man ‘taking’ from blacks, because of the opportunities they
missed out on).
The author then dives in the idea of racism, saying racism
is the theory and discrimination is the practice. He says racial discrimination
can be private or state sanctioned (voluntary vs. involuntary). In regards to
private discrimination, he argues that when people enter into contracts the
parties do so because of their mutual benefit, and that private employers
should no more be forced to hire employees than employees should be forced to work
for employers against their will. Stealing, by its very definition, means
making someone worse off, and not hiring someone does not make them worse off.
We are not entitled to a job or deal or benefit. In regards to state
discrimination, it does constitute a ‘taking’ because the state is a monopoly
and if the state doesn’t do business with you, you don’t have any alternatives
short of leaving the state or country. As citizens, everyone is entitled to be
treated equally, and if they aren’t then their rights are being infringed upon,
which constitutes ‘taking’ something they are entitled to.
(There is too much interesting information to include in one post so I will continue this in Part 2).
