First and foremost it should be said that Mr. D’Souza has a sophisticated literary style. He uses a level of language that is rare in today’s media and is almost an art form in its own right. If reviews and ratings were based solely on the eloquence of the author’s prose I would easily give his work five stars and recommend that everyone read it. Furthermore, as an essay conveying a personal point of view, D’Souza again does a great job, there is no doubt, that anyone who reads his work will understand his thoughts and perhaps even gain some appreciation for them.
So, why didn’t I give this book five stars? Well, from the dust jacket and the majority of the reviews on Goodreads, I have to say that I had a certain expectation of what I would find. My hope was that D’Souza would present a well-reasoned argument that used facts to back up his personal opinion. I went in with and open mind and, as I watched my conservative friends become insulted by the material presented in the book, I began to wonder if perhaps I was wasting my time. I continued through to the end and found one chapter in sixteen that actually struck a chord with me. Perhaps not for the same reasons that D’Souza argues, but nevertheless, I can agree on many of the points in his chapter on the American Panopticon.
Despite what I had read and believed I would see, D’Souza begins his work by dividing the population into two groups – the Conservatives and the Progressives. The Conservatives embodied what D’Souza terms “The Sprit of 1776,” while the Progressives are imbued with “The Sprit of 1968.” Whether intentionally or not, this dichotomy is portrayed as absolute and probably best described as follows (I can’t copy and paste the text for copyright reasons, but it is found in the second paragraph of the second chapter):
Conservatives love the America of Columbus, the Fourth of July, innovation, work, the “animal spirit” of capitalism, the Boy Scouts, parochial schools, traditional families and flag-saluting veterans.
Progressives love the America of tolerance, social entitlements, income and wealth distribution, affirmative action, abortion, feminism, and gay marriage.
REALLY? It’s one or the other? Those are the sides? The population is split into a two-bucket histogram and you are either a conservative who embodies all that is, in D’Souza’s mind, good or a Progressive who is full of all that is bad? You are either trying to make the country great or destroy it (create it anew in a more appropriate form)? You know who else sees the country as being in two categories? D’Souza’s adversary Michael Moore, mentioned many times in this work for his extremely “progressive” point of view. Fortunately for us, and perhaps unfortunately for D’Souza and Moore, the population is really more of a bell curve with most of us sitting to the right or left of center. Sadly for everyone, the people with the loudest voices are on either side and have completely lost sight of the fact that it is debate and compromise between opposing viewpoints that makes us succeed as a nation.
If you agree with the categorical separation of the population above, and are not going to be offended by prose that is covertly and overtly racist and sexist at times, then I recommend that you read the book. In the course of reading it, you are not going to come to see a different point of view, but it will affirm what you already believe. If you disagree with D’Souza and are willing to see past some of the points that offended even some of my more conservative friends, then you may find the historical information presented interesting. If none of that sounds like you, then you should probably not read the book – you’re not likely to enjoy it.
In closing, I was disappointed in this book. The arguments are well written, but in the world of being able to instantly fact-check anything, there were several holes in D’Souza’s presentation – for instance, while the US is indeed reducing its nuclear arsenal, it is still SIGNIFICANTLY larger than D’Souza argues. Further it is larger and more sophisticated than the next contender, Russia, who’s arsenal we have been helping disassemble for years. His main arguments for what makes the United States great are our vast wealth creation and military might (secondary arguments include innovation and religion – specifically Christianity). While he may in fact have many good points, the rather myopic nature of his presentation creates a divisive and vitriolic outcome. 1776 was a long time ago, and while the Founders certainly laid a great foundation, the world is nothing like it was 238 years ago. To assume that They would not have adapted to the ever changing world to ensure the continued success of the United States is not only naive, it is preposterous given that they granted the ability to modify the Law of the Land. The important parts of D’Souza’s message will sadly be lost, covered in the same, far-right rhetoric (along with the far-left bombast) that has, and continues to, divide the nation and hinder any sort of compromise or stability within our government, and correspondingly within the nation.