D’Souza’s Ridiculous Rationalizations


Andrew Goldman has an interview of Dinesh D’Souza at the New York Times and I found this exchange particularly fascinating. D’Souza admits that he went to Kenya expecting to find President Obama’s half-siblings to be lazy, shiftless bums looking for a handout. And then:

In your film, you traveled to Nairobi to interview Obama’s half brother, to get him to express frustration that the president hasn’t helped him financially. It had to be disappointing when he wasn’t upset at all.

Initially. Then I realized that this gives the story a more interesting twist. I expected George to be this helpless slum kid who had an outstretched hand. In fact, I find George to be a cunning, self-reliant guy — in a certain respect, a kind of conservative. He’s not looking for a handout. I admired George for that.

You suggest that President Obama may have decided not to support George because of his politics.

That’s right. It may be that Obama doesn’t want to help George because he sees George as an ideological enemy.

Isn’t that interesting? He went there to have his racial stereotyping confirmed so he could bash Obama for it, but when his stereotypes turned out to be false he just pivoted to an entirely different position and criticized him anyway. This is what passes for intellectual honesty to D’Souza. And then there’s this:

One of your film’s central arguments is that Barack Obama has absorbed the philosophy of a father whom he met once at 10 years old. Is it a bit absurd to think after a short visit, he’s the walking embodiment of everything his father believed?

Young men are obsessed with their dads, and they remain obsessed if the dad is not around. Remember that there was a lot of discussion about how George W. Bush might have invaded Iraq to atone for the failures of his dad.

Discussion that D’Souza no doubt thought was outrageous and absurd. But now he bases his entire armchair psychological analysis of Obama on an entirely unsupported claim that boys are “obsessed” with their fathers and therefore, presumably, believe everything they ever believed. And the fact that there are vast numbers of sons who disagree with their fathers on many or most issues, even after being raised under their influence forever? Well that would get in the way of his absurd hypothesis, so it is merely ignored.

Comments

  1. says

    As Mad magazine said many years ago, “You never can win with a bigot.” And that’s all D’Sozzled is: a bigot pandering to other bigots so he won’t have to do any real work.

  2. dogmeat says

    Young men are obsessed with their dads, and they remain obsessed if the dad is not around.

    This is utterly idiotic. My situation is somewhat similar to the President’s; my father died when I was four. It was quite unexpected, I had an older cousin who received many of the trinkets that a father would pass on to a son, so I really had nothing but the flag from his coffin (and the memory of him in that coffin). I know almost nothing about the guy, didn’t spend a whole lot of time trying to find out either; what’s the point? I barely know his side of the family, once my grandmother on that side passed away, I might as well have died too. I don’t think I’ve spoken to any of them in upwards of twenty years now.

    As for my father’s ideology and ideals? I know he marched in civil rights protests and anti-Vietnam protests after he came back from the war and that he was in college when he died. The end.

  3. says

    Dinesh D’ouchebag? What everybody else has already said.

    In the interest of making your headers more compelling, Ed:

    “Douchenozzle D’Souza’s Deranged, Dimwitted, Defective,Delusional Deductions”

    You’re welcome.

  4. cptdoom says

    Remember that there was a lot of discussion about how George W. Bush might have invaded Iraq to atone for the failures of his dad.

    Yeah, that’s a fair comparison. It’s still armchair psychoanalyzing, but it makes a lot more sense that the man who actually grew up with his father, who was a raging addict loser during the time his father had the most important job in the world and then got the same job might have daddy issues than the guy who barely knew his father. And if D’Souza had bothered to reference Obama’s own autobiography, he would have been able (at least I think he might) to discern that Obama’s issues were with his grandfather.

  5. upprunitegundanna says

    “That’s right. It may be that Obama doesn’t want to help George because he sees George as an ideological enemy.”

    There’s a bizarre “chicken and egg”-ness to this reasoning:

    So Dinesh reasons that Obama isn’t supporting George, because he is an ideological enemy. And he is an ideological enemy because he doesn’t want/expect to be supported by Obama.

    How does the chain of events play out in Dinesh’s head? Does he imagine that when Obama learned that George doesn’t expect handouts, he was so incensed that he thought “Fine! You don’t like handouts? I’m going to punish you by not giving you any handouts!”

  6. Michael Heath says

    I presume that people read interviews because they’re interested in the person being interviewed. That’s at least my point of reference though I have one exception – Andrew Goldman. I’m not sure what tactic Mr. Goldman employs, but I’m hooked on reading his Sunday interview; they’re always interesting.

    As for D. D’Souza, his thinking here is illustrative with that of his religion as its exercised in the U.S. by many if not nearly all conservative Christians. The actual truth doesn’t matter, defaming ‘the other’ is encouraged.
    They have a position to defend where truth doesn’t matter, and whatever justification you contrive at the time that feels right, however lame it is, you take.

    Defaming people outside the perceived tribe causes him and his allies not only no grief – but advances their credibility as a warrior for Christ. This formula can be financially lucrative as we see from Rick Warren, Albert Mohler, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and especially – Fox News and their allies who appear on their channel. Where in this case even the ‘outside the tribe’ assertion by D’Souza is a lie given that Mr. Obama is both a Christian and an American.

    We’ve recently encountered one or two evangelicals who are attempting to bring to light this attribute within conservative Christianity, those being the historians who have been recently critical of David Barton’s book on Thomas Jefferson to the point the publisher dropped the distribution of that book. But they are so few they distinguish themselves from the norm similar to how Bruce Bartlett, David Frum, and Daniel Larison distinguish themselves from the conservative movement.

  7. Chiroptera says

    Remind me again, if it turned out that George was shiftless and expected handouts, what would that have proven?

  8. jnorris says

    I believe Franklin Graham said Pres Obama genetically inherited his father’s Muslim faith despite everything his Christian grandmother and mother could do. But that’s how those Atheist Indonesian Kenyans are.

  9. eric says

    I’m still trying to figure out what interviewing a half-sibling who grew up 10,000 miles away tells you. Does D’Souza think political ideology is genetic? If George had been a lazy bum, so what? I have a whole bunch of relatives. Some have done well, others haven’t. But unless my job is “cousin educator,” I fail to see how that reflects on my job qualifications.

  10. gshelley says

    So his answer to the question “Isn’t it absurd to think Obama is obsessed with the father he met just once” is to say that many people think GW bush invaded Iraq because of his father. Does he think they also only met once?

  11. jjgdenisrobert says

    Of course d’Souza would think he was a lazy bum; he’s black. D’Souza has never been anything but a racist.

  12. Randomfactor says

    Obama’s brother CAN’T be a conservative if he hasn’t cheated on his wife and then filed for divorce. Was that in the film? I didn’t bother to watch it.

  13. says

    Is it just me or does D’Souza just skip over the obvious conclusion that Obama isn’t supporting his half-brother because his half-brother doesn’t want to be supported? He makes a claim that Obama “decided not to help” his brother as if George wouldn’t have a choice if Obama wanted him to have money. Nice way of treating a guy you claim you respect.

  14. says

    I expected George to be this helpless slum kid who had an outstretched hand. In fact, I find George to be a cunning, self-reliant guy — in a certain respect, a kind of conservative. He’s not looking for a handout. I admired George for that.

    Then George proceeds to hit him up for $1,000 for a hospital bill he says he can’t pay.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/i-have-no-one-else-to-ask-dinesh-dsouza-says-he-paid-hospital-bill-for-obamas-half-brother/

  15. Ichthyic says

    All I can say, is that after this horrid spectacle Dswizzler put on, if I were Barak Obama, I would be sorely tempted to find ways of making Dswizzler’s life a living hell.

    I mean… would YOU think to pull this crap on putatively one of the most powerful men in the world??

    I don’t Dswizzler has balls, I think he’s just… completely moronic!

  16. dan4 says

    @21: Interesting. So D’Souza makes a mendacious claim about George being a “cunning, self-reliant guy” just to score a cheap shot against Obama (“It may be that Obama doesn’t want to help George because he sees George as an ideological enemy.”).

Leave a Reply