Review: The Enemy At Home
Dinesh D’Souza is best known for going head-to-head with atheists in public debates. This Catholic scholar from India, however, also has a knack for connecting faith to global affairs, foreign policy, and cultural reform on the domestic front. Indeed D’Souza’s book, The Enemy at Home, struck a cord among liberals and conservatives alike, calling out the secularists and making the case that our own moral depravity, sponsored by the secular Left, was the root cause of 9/11. D’Souza argues that conservatives have missed a perfect opportunity to link the culture war with the war on terror – that radical Muslims do not hate democracy, free markets, or new technology, but rather our permissive culture. Contrary to the Left, no Middle Easterner believes America is seeking a new hegemonic, territory-based imperialism. What struck fear into bin Laden was the new “cultural imperialism” of the radical Left which poses an existential threat to Islam.
As a native of India with a long history of relations with Indian Muslims, D’Souza quickly rids us of the liberal-conservative dichotomy which laces our discussions on politics, culture, and religion. Islam is not made up of liberals and conservatives but rather of traditionalists and radicals. The traditionalists are neither moderates nor conservatives; they simply live out the core beliefs of Islam, have high moral standards, and raise strong families. On the flip side, neither “Islamo-fascism” nor “fundamentalism” adequately describes the radicals, for the former term is only an attempt to recycle World War II imagery, painting Muslims as modern Nazis, while the latter term could describe any Muslim who follows the fundamental five pillars of Islam – none of which include terrorism. In the end, the ally we need to defeat the radicals is neither secular France nor the radical liberals in America.
The Enemy at Home argues that we need to win over the Islamic traditionalists.
D’Souza warns us, however, that the radicals are trying to win over the traditionalists as well, and the way they are doing it is by showing the traditionalists the moral bankruptcy of America and Europe. While the vast majority of traditional Muslims have never been to America or Europe, it is noteworthy that almost all the leaders of radical Islam were born here, lived here, or were educated here. As D’Souza says: “The Muslims who hate us the most are the ones who have encountered Western decadence… their hatred was not a product of ignorance but of familiarity; not of Wahhabi indoctrination but of firsthand observation.” It is here that pious Muslims witness radical individualism as the worship of the self, the renunciation of moral standards, and the celebration of those who frequently exercise a “right” to blaspheme God.
Without traveling overseas, all the traditionalists have to do is tune into ABC, MTV, or HBO to see firsthand the cultural depravity of America – and this will only lead them to side with the radicals. More still, they can think back to a rather local case-in-point: the Abu Ghraib scandal – an event despised by pious Muslims not for torture (the “torture” was only simulated and even that fell far short of the real torture conducted there by Saddam Hussein), but rather for the adulterous relationship between the ringleaders of the mayhem and the way the leading female soldier emasculated the men in the prison. If freedom in America means fornication, inverted gender roles, and a lack of religious piety, the Muslims – both the radicals and the traditionalists – will pass.
But if American and European decadence acts the negative aspect of the radicals’ argument, the positive side of the argument comes in the form of a narrative. In other words, if you want to win people over, make your case with a story (that’s how Jesus did it and we see the same thing in film with C-3PO and the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi). According to the narrative, it was the Islamic radicals who defeated the atheist Soviet Union, not America. Emphasis is here placed on the leadership of Muslim Mujahideen soldiers in Afghanistan, humiliating the soviets and setting in motion events leading to communism’s capitulation in Russia. Since then the radicals have established two staunchly Islamic states (in Iran and Afghanistan) and they now seek to defeat the rising atheist nations in Europe and America. Given the narrative, the radicals ask in effect: “Is it not clear that Allah is indeed on our side?”
It is important for us to understand the aims of the radicals. Despite what we hear from conservatives, spreading terror is not their aim. We often hear, even from popes, about the “senseless violence” of the radical Muslims. But this violence is anything but senseless. It has a purpose and a goal. Just look at Spain’s 9/11, the Madrid bombing. Before the bombing Spain stood to support efforts to fight the radicals, but after the bombing a new government was elected which withdrew Spain from events in the Middle East.
And that’s exactly what bin Laden wanted.
To understand this better we should look at the distinction which Islamic radicals make between the near enemy and the far enemy. The former refers to the secularizing forces and leaders within the Muslim world while the latter refers to outside powers which sustain the secularization process from a distance. For decades, the radicals sought to defeat the near enemy and in some ways they succeeded. The shah of Iran was overthrown and replaced by a radical regime. Afghanistan was turned into a radical state as well, becoming the home base of bin Laden’s organization. But despite these successes, the radicals began to think more and more that the only sure way to impose radical Islam on the Middle East was to cut off any secularizing leaders from outside support. Thus we come to 9/11.
The American response to 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq was exactly the opposite of what bin Laden was expecting. George Bush proved to be no Bill Clinton – for unlike Clinton, who let attack after attack go on with little to no response, Bush destroyed bin Laden’s bases and radical-backed, Taliban regime in Afghanistan and, like a cowboy, walked into the heart of the Middle East like an old western saloon filled with bad guys, approached the meanest looking guy in the room (Hussein) and showed the rest of the men what happens to criminals and cowards.
But while the tactic worked – to the cheers of conservatives and the chagrin of the liberals – it is simply not enough. In 2004, President Bush won a second term in office due in large part to value voters in the states where the gay marriage debate was raging. This very issue was one in which Bush could have pressed further at home in his second term’s domestic policy while using it to rally traditional Muslims to the anti-radical cause. But by focusing on the military front and letting moral matters remain on the sidelines, American popular opinion slipped further into the hands of “gay rights” and now more states are moving further and further away from marriage. Again, how are we to win over the traditionalists when we are the perfect example of the depravity that can occur in a “free” society? Given the choice between a brutal secular dictatorship under rulers like Hussein or Gaddafi or a radical dictatorship under rulers like Ahmadinejad or the Taliban, the traditionalists would choose the latter. The tables will not be turned until we help give the traditionalists a third option.
In other words, a free society does not mean a radically secular society. A free society will only be free if it continues to embrace traditional social norms and taboos. What’s more, this third option is just as applicable to the home front as it is to Islamic nations.
Because of this, D’Souza points out that the secular left and radicals in Islam have actually become allies. This is because neither side wants to see this third option. The radicals do not want to see the rise of free Islamic nations, not because of democracy or freedom, but because they are opposed to the establishment of separate nations. Their goal is to re-establish the old caliphate, the single, vast Islamic state which will advance Islam’s conquest of the world. Ironically enough, it is the secular left that does not favor democracy, for if we look at the major liberal social gains we see that almost all of them have come through judicial fiat and not the will of the people. Moreover, the secular left would never support a free and traditional Muslim nation – indeed, the only acceptable nations in the eyes of the secular left are the nations run by radical secularism. But if the radical Muslims and the secular leftists are polar opposites ideologically, they see a similar threat in America’s traditionalists.
D’Souza rightly points out that the United States never had any colonies in the Middle East and in the decades leading up the 1960s America was seen as a potential ally to the fledging Middle Eastern nations. What changed the Muslim perception of the United States? Not Israel, but the sexual revolution. The good news is that there is still time to build an alliance between traditional, moral, freedom-loving American and traditional Muslims in the Middle East. To accomplish this, D’Souza tells us we must show America that the secular left is a fringe movement which does not represent mainstream America. We must also align social conservatives and foreign policy hawks. It’s time for our Rick Santorum’s and George Bush’s to unite. Furthermore, there can be no toleration with conservative secularists like Tammy Bruce, John McCain, or Dick Cheney. Radical secularism is the enemy, whether it is found on the left or right. Lastly, conservatives must make a distinction between radical and traditional Islam, learning to accept the fact that traditional Americans and traditional Muslims have much more in common than either have with the radical, secular left.
Unlike many authors I read, Dinesh D’Souza and I share the same Catholic faith. But as a Catholic shaped more by theology, I will offer some concluding insights:
1. Narratives are Important: If the radical Muslims have a story which drives their cause towards a goal, what is our story? Catholics like Jeff Cavins and Scott Hahn have been working on a “big picture” overview of salvation history in scripture but what is driving us forward now? What is our mission? If anything, I suggest we develop a macrohistorical metanarrative of our own. Christ sent out the Apostles to baptize the nations, so what is our story of the nations? What role does the Church play among the nations? If the past 500 years have seen divisions among Christians over the rise of Protestantism and nations, how do we forge new unions while upholding the dignity of the nations?
2. Christianity is not Pacifist: Catholics do themselves no favors when they attempt to be on “both sides” of the aisle. Our faith is not a political game. We are not “conservative” on abortion and homosexuality and “liberal” on matters of war and peace. If a macrohistorical metanarrative tells us anything, it will show a long line of Christians saints who were anything but pacifists. It will also help us to see the development of Christianity through the centuries. The first centuries were dominated by Christological controversies. Later on were debates on grace and the sacraments. As time progressed, the nature of the Church was raised. This matter was addressed in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, which provides us with a wealth of knowledge on ecclesiology. And now that the nations are rising, further development of Just War theory is required for the modern age. But more than a theory or a doctrine, we need a story that clearly helps us see that a culture of life is a culture of protection. It is only when we understand this that we can appreciate the civilizational differences between Islam and the Christian nations and begin to elevate our civilization from its moral depravity.
3. The Flawed Thomistic Calculus: If the utilitarian’s used the hedonic calculus to determine one’s actions, many traditional Catholics often use what I call the “Thomistic calculus” to determine their vote. This abstract, principle-based approach to politics often times shrinks our perspective in a way which blinds us to the “big picture” of our narrative. This is often the case among Catholics who reject all American wars as unjust. They apply an abstract set of principles to Vietnam (for example), completing overlooking the broader perspective of history and the impact of two sets of assassinated Catholic brothers. Just as Ockham’s razor makes for great science but bad philosophy, so Thomistic principles makes for great philosophy and theology but can be blinding to we moderns steeped in radical individualism. If we want saintly scholars, perhaps a great Doctor of the Church for us today would be St. Lawrence of Brindisi – a man brilliant man who created a culture of protection in word and deed.
4. The Catholic Church is not Anti-National: During the Middle Ages, the popes often saw themselves as competing with the secular rulers for power. In large part, many understood the Church in the same way as the Muslims understood the caliphate and the papacy sought to rule over a united Christendom. Thus it should not surprise us that the Church was opposed to the growing numbers of independent European nations. Ironic as it may seem, the greatest contribution of the Protestants was the Christian nation. Over the past 500 years, however, Protestants have not been able to hold on to their powerful new discovery. This is largely due to their abandonment of Holy Orders. The Catholic Church has sense better understood her relation to the nations and now possesses the icons with which to form the nations under God, for the Catholic faithful can see in his local bishop and priests the icon of a head and his body ordered for a mission. This is the image with which to shape civic society and order public life. As always, we Catholics have the tools we need from God – the question is: will we use them?
As a native of India with a long history of relations with Indian Muslims, D’Souza quickly rids us of the liberal-conservative dichotomy which laces our discussions on politics, culture, and religion. Islam is not made up of liberals and conservatives but rather of traditionalists and radicals. The traditionalists are neither moderates nor conservatives; they simply live out the core beliefs of Islam, have high moral standards, and raise strong families. On the flip side, neither “Islamo-fascism” nor “fundamentalism” adequately describes the radicals, for the former term is only an attempt to recycle World War II imagery, painting Muslims as modern Nazis, while the latter term could describe any Muslim who follows the fundamental five pillars of Islam – none of which include terrorism. In the end, the ally we need to defeat the radicals is neither secular France nor the radical liberals in America.
The Enemy at Home argues that we need to win over the Islamic traditionalists.
D’Souza warns us, however, that the radicals are trying to win over the traditionalists as well, and the way they are doing it is by showing the traditionalists the moral bankruptcy of America and Europe. While the vast majority of traditional Muslims have never been to America or Europe, it is noteworthy that almost all the leaders of radical Islam were born here, lived here, or were educated here. As D’Souza says: “The Muslims who hate us the most are the ones who have encountered Western decadence… their hatred was not a product of ignorance but of familiarity; not of Wahhabi indoctrination but of firsthand observation.” It is here that pious Muslims witness radical individualism as the worship of the self, the renunciation of moral standards, and the celebration of those who frequently exercise a “right” to blaspheme God.
Without traveling overseas, all the traditionalists have to do is tune into ABC, MTV, or HBO to see firsthand the cultural depravity of America – and this will only lead them to side with the radicals. More still, they can think back to a rather local case-in-point: the Abu Ghraib scandal – an event despised by pious Muslims not for torture (the “torture” was only simulated and even that fell far short of the real torture conducted there by Saddam Hussein), but rather for the adulterous relationship between the ringleaders of the mayhem and the way the leading female soldier emasculated the men in the prison. If freedom in America means fornication, inverted gender roles, and a lack of religious piety, the Muslims – both the radicals and the traditionalists – will pass.
But if American and European decadence acts the negative aspect of the radicals’ argument, the positive side of the argument comes in the form of a narrative. In other words, if you want to win people over, make your case with a story (that’s how Jesus did it and we see the same thing in film with C-3PO and the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi). According to the narrative, it was the Islamic radicals who defeated the atheist Soviet Union, not America. Emphasis is here placed on the leadership of Muslim Mujahideen soldiers in Afghanistan, humiliating the soviets and setting in motion events leading to communism’s capitulation in Russia. Since then the radicals have established two staunchly Islamic states (in Iran and Afghanistan) and they now seek to defeat the rising atheist nations in Europe and America. Given the narrative, the radicals ask in effect: “Is it not clear that Allah is indeed on our side?”
It is important for us to understand the aims of the radicals. Despite what we hear from conservatives, spreading terror is not their aim. We often hear, even from popes, about the “senseless violence” of the radical Muslims. But this violence is anything but senseless. It has a purpose and a goal. Just look at Spain’s 9/11, the Madrid bombing. Before the bombing Spain stood to support efforts to fight the radicals, but after the bombing a new government was elected which withdrew Spain from events in the Middle East.
And that’s exactly what bin Laden wanted.
To understand this better we should look at the distinction which Islamic radicals make between the near enemy and the far enemy. The former refers to the secularizing forces and leaders within the Muslim world while the latter refers to outside powers which sustain the secularization process from a distance. For decades, the radicals sought to defeat the near enemy and in some ways they succeeded. The shah of Iran was overthrown and replaced by a radical regime. Afghanistan was turned into a radical state as well, becoming the home base of bin Laden’s organization. But despite these successes, the radicals began to think more and more that the only sure way to impose radical Islam on the Middle East was to cut off any secularizing leaders from outside support. Thus we come to 9/11.
The American response to 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq was exactly the opposite of what bin Laden was expecting. George Bush proved to be no Bill Clinton – for unlike Clinton, who let attack after attack go on with little to no response, Bush destroyed bin Laden’s bases and radical-backed, Taliban regime in Afghanistan and, like a cowboy, walked into the heart of the Middle East like an old western saloon filled with bad guys, approached the meanest looking guy in the room (Hussein) and showed the rest of the men what happens to criminals and cowards.
But while the tactic worked – to the cheers of conservatives and the chagrin of the liberals – it is simply not enough. In 2004, President Bush won a second term in office due in large part to value voters in the states where the gay marriage debate was raging. This very issue was one in which Bush could have pressed further at home in his second term’s domestic policy while using it to rally traditional Muslims to the anti-radical cause. But by focusing on the military front and letting moral matters remain on the sidelines, American popular opinion slipped further into the hands of “gay rights” and now more states are moving further and further away from marriage. Again, how are we to win over the traditionalists when we are the perfect example of the depravity that can occur in a “free” society? Given the choice between a brutal secular dictatorship under rulers like Hussein or Gaddafi or a radical dictatorship under rulers like Ahmadinejad or the Taliban, the traditionalists would choose the latter. The tables will not be turned until we help give the traditionalists a third option.
In other words, a free society does not mean a radically secular society. A free society will only be free if it continues to embrace traditional social norms and taboos. What’s more, this third option is just as applicable to the home front as it is to Islamic nations.
Because of this, D’Souza points out that the secular left and radicals in Islam have actually become allies. This is because neither side wants to see this third option. The radicals do not want to see the rise of free Islamic nations, not because of democracy or freedom, but because they are opposed to the establishment of separate nations. Their goal is to re-establish the old caliphate, the single, vast Islamic state which will advance Islam’s conquest of the world. Ironically enough, it is the secular left that does not favor democracy, for if we look at the major liberal social gains we see that almost all of them have come through judicial fiat and not the will of the people. Moreover, the secular left would never support a free and traditional Muslim nation – indeed, the only acceptable nations in the eyes of the secular left are the nations run by radical secularism. But if the radical Muslims and the secular leftists are polar opposites ideologically, they see a similar threat in America’s traditionalists.
D’Souza rightly points out that the United States never had any colonies in the Middle East and in the decades leading up the 1960s America was seen as a potential ally to the fledging Middle Eastern nations. What changed the Muslim perception of the United States? Not Israel, but the sexual revolution. The good news is that there is still time to build an alliance between traditional, moral, freedom-loving American and traditional Muslims in the Middle East. To accomplish this, D’Souza tells us we must show America that the secular left is a fringe movement which does not represent mainstream America. We must also align social conservatives and foreign policy hawks. It’s time for our Rick Santorum’s and George Bush’s to unite. Furthermore, there can be no toleration with conservative secularists like Tammy Bruce, John McCain, or Dick Cheney. Radical secularism is the enemy, whether it is found on the left or right. Lastly, conservatives must make a distinction between radical and traditional Islam, learning to accept the fact that traditional Americans and traditional Muslims have much more in common than either have with the radical, secular left.
Unlike many authors I read, Dinesh D’Souza and I share the same Catholic faith. But as a Catholic shaped more by theology, I will offer some concluding insights:
1. Narratives are Important: If the radical Muslims have a story which drives their cause towards a goal, what is our story? Catholics like Jeff Cavins and Scott Hahn have been working on a “big picture” overview of salvation history in scripture but what is driving us forward now? What is our mission? If anything, I suggest we develop a macrohistorical metanarrative of our own. Christ sent out the Apostles to baptize the nations, so what is our story of the nations? What role does the Church play among the nations? If the past 500 years have seen divisions among Christians over the rise of Protestantism and nations, how do we forge new unions while upholding the dignity of the nations?
2. Christianity is not Pacifist: Catholics do themselves no favors when they attempt to be on “both sides” of the aisle. Our faith is not a political game. We are not “conservative” on abortion and homosexuality and “liberal” on matters of war and peace. If a macrohistorical metanarrative tells us anything, it will show a long line of Christians saints who were anything but pacifists. It will also help us to see the development of Christianity through the centuries. The first centuries were dominated by Christological controversies. Later on were debates on grace and the sacraments. As time progressed, the nature of the Church was raised. This matter was addressed in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, which provides us with a wealth of knowledge on ecclesiology. And now that the nations are rising, further development of Just War theory is required for the modern age. But more than a theory or a doctrine, we need a story that clearly helps us see that a culture of life is a culture of protection. It is only when we understand this that we can appreciate the civilizational differences between Islam and the Christian nations and begin to elevate our civilization from its moral depravity.
3. The Flawed Thomistic Calculus: If the utilitarian’s used the hedonic calculus to determine one’s actions, many traditional Catholics often use what I call the “Thomistic calculus” to determine their vote. This abstract, principle-based approach to politics often times shrinks our perspective in a way which blinds us to the “big picture” of our narrative. This is often the case among Catholics who reject all American wars as unjust. They apply an abstract set of principles to Vietnam (for example), completing overlooking the broader perspective of history and the impact of two sets of assassinated Catholic brothers. Just as Ockham’s razor makes for great science but bad philosophy, so Thomistic principles makes for great philosophy and theology but can be blinding to we moderns steeped in radical individualism. If we want saintly scholars, perhaps a great Doctor of the Church for us today would be St. Lawrence of Brindisi – a man brilliant man who created a culture of protection in word and deed.
4. The Catholic Church is not Anti-National: During the Middle Ages, the popes often saw themselves as competing with the secular rulers for power. In large part, many understood the Church in the same way as the Muslims understood the caliphate and the papacy sought to rule over a united Christendom. Thus it should not surprise us that the Church was opposed to the growing numbers of independent European nations. Ironic as it may seem, the greatest contribution of the Protestants was the Christian nation. Over the past 500 years, however, Protestants have not been able to hold on to their powerful new discovery. This is largely due to their abandonment of Holy Orders. The Catholic Church has sense better understood her relation to the nations and now possesses the icons with which to form the nations under God, for the Catholic faithful can see in his local bishop and priests the icon of a head and his body ordered for a mission. This is the image with which to shape civic society and order public life. As always, we Catholics have the tools we need from God – the question is: will we use them?