Letters to a Young Conservative

by Dinesh D'Souza

Among the topics Dinesh D'Souza covers in Letters to a Young Conservative : -- Fighting Political Correctness -- Authentic vs. Bogus Multiculturalism -- Why Government Is the Problem -- When the Rich Get Richer -- How Affirmative Action Hurts Blacks -- The Feminist Mistake -- All the News That Fits -- How to Harpoon a Liberal -- The Self-Esteem Hoax -- A Republican Realignment? -- Why Conservatives Should Be Cheerful

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Political Science, Current Affairs, Essays, Education

240 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 2002

About the author

Dinesh D’Souza is a political commentator, bestselling author, filmmaker and a former policy analyst in the Reagan White House, Dinesh D'Souza graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College in 1983. He served as John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. D'Souza writes primarily about Christianity, patriotism and American politics.

Reviews

[Douglas Lobo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reviewers who acuse Dinesh D'Souza to be "angry" make the old mistake generations of conservatives has been made: being polite with the leftists, just to be called by them "fascists". Yes, Dinesh D'Souza is angry with leftists. I myself appreciate that. After all, politics is a war of ideas, and being polite or not is a secondary issue. On the other hand, the book explains greatly the grounds of conservatism. Criticizing the lack of scientificism in the book is missing the point: "Letters to a Young Conservative" is about a political option, so It's based on philosofical argumentation, not datas (altough there are a lot of them). Besides, trying to discuss politics in scientific bases is a kind of naive. Dinesh is an old school intelectual, not a scientist. Great book.

[Will · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was a truly frightening window into contemporary conservative thought. There are basically no ideas here, except that liberals are stupid and ugly, and that Reagan was a great man. Whether you agree or disagree, it would be nice to see some actual attention paid to supporting these arguments with something resembling rational analysis.

The jokes are about what you'd expect from a 12-year-old boy... who's not very funny. But, like Anaconda, Kazaam, and other similar movies, this one is so bad it's quite entertaining. The part where D'Souza makes a joke about an angry liberal having diarrhea is classic.

[Fawn · Rating 1 out of 5]

I've seen this book described as a series of rational arguments against the liberal agenda. Unfortunately, that is not what you will find. This "rational" book with its "logical" conclusions is rife with straw man arguments. Inflammatory statements are tossed about to mask weak points, anecdotal stories are presented as hard data, unnecessary distasteful jokes are sprinkled in, all removing the credibility of his sparse solid uses of logic. This is yet another political book that does a beautiful job of pleasing the base, but does nothing to communicate to the other side.

[Shawna Shannon · Rating 1 out of 5]

I learned that I would rather gouge my own eyes out than have to read this book again. Not very academic, but true.

[Jeff Raymond · Rating 1 out of 5]

I wasn't familiar with D'Sousa when I read this, but I think I'm glad that was the case after doing so. Quite the self-important streak he has there.

[Karen · Rating 1 out of 5]

The impression I got from this book was that, basically, if you are a liberal, you are an awful person, doomed to an eternity of immoral thoughts and a lack of competence, no matter who you are.

[George · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent book. It outlines basic conservative beliefs of the 90s, many of the beliefs that are no longer held today. Some chapters like the one on abortion and the one on limited government are top notch, while others like the one on rich people getting richer are middling at best.

[Tony G. · Rating 1 out of 5]

"With mentors like these..."

[Michele · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think I adore this man, but I also find parts of him so angry and a bit repulsive. But, as a scholar and American supporter, he has my utmost gratitude. If I had the opportunity to shake his hand, there is a small chance, I would fall at his feet and bathe them with my tears.
I also think I would like to feed him lunch and possibly mother him to some degree.

56: A classic he writes, is a work that has survived the provinciality of its own moment in space and in time. ....It is less important for students to learn about the great books than it is for them to learn from the great books. The great books are about fundamental human questions; indeed, they are a kind of extended argument about these questions. The philosopher Leo Strauss writes,. 'Liberal education consists in listening to the conversation among the greatest minds.'

I found this quote fascinating: 185 Irving Kristol: America does not have a single moral problem that another Great Depression would not cure.

I'm so glad people like Dinesh exist. This poor world needs more of them.

[Michael Locklear · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've had this book in my library since January 16, 2003... and I'm sorry I did not read it sooner.
A friend of mine recently brought D'Souza back to my attention with his book, "What's So Great About Christianity." So I thought, "Hey, you have one of two of his books. You need to read him." And I'm glad I did. Earlier, I finished "Godforsaken" but I have yet to review and close it out on Goodreads. I will soon.
But back to "Letters To A Young Conservative."
If you have any interests in political talk (especially Conservative politics), this book is a must read. Though written back in 2002, it's still very much on the cutting-edge.
D'Souza covers such topics as political correctness, Reagan's victories over Liberals and the Soviet Government, afffirmative action, the bias news media, gun control, gay marriage, abortion, and illegal immigrants to name a few.
Excellent book and a fun read (if you not a Liberal).

[Szplug · Rating 2 out of 5]

I picked this up thinking it might be something along the lines of Burkean/Kirkian conservative thought, parsed through the lens of modernity and (necessarily) more succinct and abbreviated than the principal output of either of D'Souza's ideological forebears. It didn't take me long to realize it was more of a primer in that delightful culture war trademark tactic of How to Annoy the Other Side. Presumably, D'Souza felt he could crank out a barbed and amusing epistolary volume that would be lighthearted fun, whilst still imparting a broad outline of modern conservative tenets; I found it to be glib and increasingly irritating. For its intended audience, this will probably hit the spot in just the right amounts - for others, their reaction may well be closer to mine.

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you're looking for an intellectually rigorous articulation of conservative ideals, this is not your book. I just kept thinking that if the young recipient of D'Souza's letters actually assumed the same glib, arrogant posture, he probably got his clock cleaned by the first quick-thinking liberal he met. D'Souza certainly makes a number of strong points, but too many times he falls into a pattern of setting up straw men and then demolishing them for easy applause.

[Shannen Stiffler · Rating 1 out of 5]

Required read for a class. The book reads as though an extremely temperamental 14 year just learning about politics wrote it. I was hoping to gain more insight on conservative thought and motivation behind their beliefs but I will have to look elsewhere.

[David · Rating 1 out of 5]

I like my authors not to be convicts.
Unless you are an incel or a proud boy wannabe, this book is not for you...or everyone for that matter.\
The fact that it was published does not surprise me, it scares me.

[Christine Hiester · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is my third time reading this book. Excellent foundational principles of conservatism.

[Alan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I would contend that Dinesh D'Souza is one of the greatest conservative minds presently active on the political scene. This is a must-read for any young conservative!

[Frederick Hammill · Rating 1 out of 5]

If the young conservative the author is writing to has a 2nd grade reading level, then this book was extremely well done.

[Josh Hanke · Rating 4 out of 5]

I greatly value Mr. D'Souza's logical arguments against liberalism (and agree with most of those arguments), but he often lets his religious beliefs taint his thinking (gay marriage). Here were some memorable pieces that I thought either humorous or thought provoking:

"There is some overlap in the moral vocabulary that liberals and conservatives use. Both speak of 'equality,' although they mean different things by the term. Conservatives emphasize the equality of rights and they are quite willing to endure inequalities that are the product of differential capacity or merit. Liberals emphasize the equality of outcomes, and they tend to attribute inequality to the unequal opportunities that have been provided by society."

"I was also troubled by the radicalism of the feminist professors on campus. These women made statements to the effect that all males were potential rapists. One professor said she could barely walk around the Dartmouth campus because the tall tower of Baker Library upset her so deeply. To her, the tall buildings at Dartmouth were "phallic symbols." I swear, this woman's definition of a phallic symbol was anything taller than it was wide. And because these women were famous for bringing their politics into the classroom, your grade was likely to suffer if you didn't agree with them."

"[The government's] power of coercion, which is inherent in the nature of government, fundamentally undermines the liberal claim that the government is doing a moral thing by helping people.
“Let me show you why this is so. I am walking down the street, eating a sandwich, when I am approached by a hungry man. He wants to share my sandwich. Now if I give him the sandwich, I have done a good deed, and I feel good about it. The hungry man is grateful, and even if he cannot repay me for my kindness, possibly he will try to help someone else when he has the chance. So this is a transaction that benefits the giver as well as the receiver. But see what happens when the government gets involved. The government takes my sandwich from me by force. Consequently, I am a reluctant giver. The government then bestows my sandwich upon the hungry man. Instead of showing me gratitude, however, the man feels entitled to this benefit. In other words, the involvement of the state has utterly stripped the transaction of its moral value, even though the result is exactly the same.”

“I have a friend in India who has been trying to move to the United States for years, but he can’t seem to get a visa. Finally, I ask him, ‘Why are you so eager to come to America?’ He replied, ‘Because I really want to move to a country where the poor people are fat.’”

“I continue to be surprised by the rapid rate at which technology spreads from the affluent class to the general population. We have seen this with VCRs, with computers, with cell phones. During the 1980’s, cell phones were mainly used by yuppies driving expensive cars. They were a status symbol whose social prestige derived from their relative scarcity. Today, cell phones are ubiquitous at every socioeconomic level and their status value is down to nil.
“The liberal realist (admittedly a thinly populated group) may admit all this, and yet insist that technological capitalism creates scandalous levels of inequality. In the short term, this is sometimes so. In the long term, however, technological capitalism is a powerful vehicle for promoting equality. This is not widely recognized, so permit me to explain.
“A hundred years ago, the rich man drove a car and the poor man walked. That was a big difference. Today, the rich man drives a new Porsche and the poor man drives a second-hand Honda Civic. That is not such a big difference. A century ago, rich families avoided the cold weather by going to Florida for the winter. Meanwhile, poor families braved the elements. Today, most families, whatever their economic status, enjoy central heating; but the poor have benefited more from this invention because it has alleviated a situation from which they previously had no escape.
“Perhaps the best illustration of the egalitarian effects of techno-capitalism can be shown by life expectancy statistics. In 1900, the life expectancy in America was roughly fifty years. Rich people lived to the age of sixty, while poor people on average died at the age of forty-five. There was a fifteen-year gap in life expectancy between the rich and the poor. Today, life expectancy in America has climbed to seventy-eight years. The rich guy lives to the age of eighty, while the poor guy drops at the age of seventy-six. This is still a gap – four years – but it is vastly smaller than the fifteen-year gap of a century ago. And what has closed the gap? Advances in medicine, in nutrition, in crop yields, and so on.
“My conclusion? Technological capitalism has done more to raise the general standard of living, and to equalize the circumstances of rich and poor, than all the government and philanthropic programs put together. This fact severely undermines the liberal view that aggressive government redistribution is needed to prevent growing and enduring inequality.”

“Don’t affirmative action policies fight discrimination? No. Consider two virtually identical scenarios. A white guy and a black guy apply for a position. The black guy is better qualified; the white guy gets the position. That’s racial discrimination. Here is the second scenario. A white guy and a black guy apply for a position. The white guy is better qualified; the black guy gets the position. That’s affirmative action. Now, in what sense is the second result a remedy for the first? It is not. All I see are two instances of racial discrimination.”

“How does affirmative action hurt blacks? African Americans face two serious problems in America today. The first is ‘rumors of inferiority.’ Many people don’t like Koreans or Pakistanis, but hardly anyone considers these people inferior. With blacks, however, there remains a widespread suspicion that they might be intellectually inferior. Far from dispelling this suspicion, affirmative action strengthens it. Affirmative action conveys the message to society that ‘this group is incapable of making it on its own merits.’ Racial preferences are a sort of Special Olympics for African Americans. Such preferences devalue black achievement, and they intensify doubts about black capacity. The second problem facing African Americans is cultural breakdown…”

“One reason liberals support political correctness is that they believe stern social controls are needed to prevent insensitivity and bigotry because those things gravely injure the self-esteem of women and minorities. So, too, many liberals don’t like standardized tests because some people do better on those tests than others, and liberals worry that poorly performing students may suffer blows to their self-esteem… Self-esteem is a very American concept and Americans, perhaps more than anyone else in the world, tend to believe that feeling good about yourself is an essential prerequisite to performing to the best of your ability… In a democratic society, self-esteem is claimed as an entitlement. Self-esteem in the West is largely a product of the romantic movement, which exalts feelings over reason, the subjective over the objective… But does stronger self-esteem make students learn better? This seems dubious. Institutions such as the Jesuits and the U. S. Marines have for generations produced impressive intellectual and motivational results by undermining the self-esteem of recruits… Several years ago, a group called the California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem conducted a study to explore the relationship between self-esteem and academic performance. The study found, to its own evident chagrin, that higher self-esteem does not produce better intellectual performance. Nor does it produce more desirable social outcomes, such as lower teen pregnancy or reduced delinquency… Consistently, American students score higher on self-esteem. Yet on actual reading and math tests, American students perform near the bottom. Similarly, within the United States, black males have the highest self-esteem of any group. Yet on academic measures black males score the lowest… None of this is to suggest that the research on self-esteem shows no relationship between self-confidence and academic performance. There is a relationship, but it runs in the opposite direction. Self-esteem doesn’t produce enhanced achievement, but achievement produces enhanced self-esteem… [So] when I study hard, discover the meaning of a poem, find the amoeba under the microscope, see my way through a difficult math problem, then I feel exhilarated, and my self-esteem is justly strengthened.”

“Despite his disgraceful personal conduct, Bill Clinton was not a bad president. He fought for a landmark free trade agreement, signed welfare reform, and moved the Democratic Party to the political center.”

[Randy · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 30 short chapters (the book is 220 pages) D'Souza takes us on a whirlwind tour of the worldview of the conservative. Because of the brief treatment each subject receives, he cannot approach a thorough defense of any of them. Nevertheless, by the end a coherent picture emerges and he concludes by offering a reading list that should more fully satisfy the appetite he was only able to whet.



In an historical overview we learn that both conservatism and modern liberalism have their roots in classical liberalism with its emphasis on freedom for the individual. But with the changes brought about in the 1930's under FDR and in the 1960's "liberation" movement, the two have diverged to the point that they really stand opposed to one another. They have a fundamental difference in their understanding of human nature.



Liberals, following Rousseau, believe we are basically good, that human nature is malleable if only we apply the right social engineering. Conflicts in the world are not seen in terms of good versus evil, but as misunderstandings. Society at large, and not individuals themselves, are to blame for bad situations such as crime and poverty. Absolute autonomy and personal subjective relativism are the twin dogmas of modern liberalism.



Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in an external, objective moral order. Terms such as good and evil refer to this moral order and thus are not inventions of the human mind. A less sunny diagnosis of human nature leads to a greater emphasis on individual responsibility since conservatives are more realistic about what we are capable of and therefore cannot deflect the blame like liberals do. It also allows for a recognition that some regimes in the world are actually evil, so force, not dialogue, may be necessary in dealing with them. While personal autonomy is important to some degree for the conservative, he finds he must balance this autonomy with duty and virtue which he recognizes from the objective moral order.



D'Souza's discussion of multiculturalism was a particularly interesting example of the clash of worldviews. He distinguishes between authentic and "bogus" multiculturalism, the former referring to a proper recognition of living in a multiracial society, but the latter referring to a leftist political ideology. A case can be made for attempting to balance university curricula to include more great books from the non-Western world. However, "it is impossible to understand multiculturalism in America without realizing that it arises from the powerful conviction that bigotry and oppression define Western civilization in general and American in particular." Consequently representative literary works from other cultures are rejected because they reflect the same bigotry and discrimination that the West is accused of. Instead marginal works are selected, ones which do not reflect their culture but do speak of victimization and oppression. So it is called bogus multiculturalism because "it views non-Western cultures through the ideological lens of Western leftist politics." True multiculturalism, in contrast, would teach the greatest works of Western and non-Western cultures. Its goal would be to study, in the words of Matthew Arnold, "the best that has been thought and said."



Liberal judicial activism also comes under fire for undermining the democratic process by imposing the left wing ideology of the judiciary on the American people. Conservatives, on the other hand, insist that in a democratic society, the people make the laws and the judges apply them. Liberals generally feel that "judges should have the power to make a ruling that specifically contravenes the Constitution and also goes against the wishes of the American people." One egregious example of liberal judicial activism is the so-called "right to privacy" that the Supreme Court found in the Constitution on which to base the legalization of abortion: this right was not found but fabricated.



Conservatives are generally pro-life while liberals are almost certainly pro-choice. In fact, being pro-choice is a litmus test for liberals hoping to have any success in politics, because it is here that personal autonomy, one of the two dogmas of liberalism, is most put to the test. Conservatives are pro-life because their less radical insistence on personal autonomy can be tempered by the overriding concern for another human being's right to life. Initially I disagreed with D'Souza's pro-life strategy. He calls hard line pro-lifers "fools" because their insistence on preventing all abortions will, in his opinion, have the result of preventing none. The reason is that the prolife movement does not enjoy the support of the American people that it would need to achieve this. Instead, he says we should focus on reducing the number of abortions as a step toward the ultimate goal of ending it. He reminds us of the strategy employed by Abraham Lincoln with the slavery issue. Although antislavery, Lincoln was not an abolitionist but instead worked toward curtailing the spread of slavery to the territories. During the Civil War, the outcome of the war was very much in question and Lincoln did not want the border states, which did have slaves, to also secede from the Union. So he carefully framed his case against the Confederacy not as one of slavery but as one of saving the Union. In this way his coalition was maintained, "a coalition whose victory was essential to the cause of antislavery." I find D'Souza's reasoning intriquing, and wonder if the pro-life movement might have more success by thinking along those lines.



Of all the chapters in the book, the one I am wary of is the one dealing with the environment. The title of the chapter, "Who cares about the snail darter?" raised a red flag from the start. His cavalier playing down of global warming concerns me. I am also not convinced by his dismissal of organic farming as inefficient, in favour of high-yield farming, assisted by bio-engineering and pesticides. He does claim that conservatives are concerned with the environment, admitting that "the stewardship of nature is now a human responsibility." He would, however, distinguish this reasonable concern with the liberal environmentalists, who "tend to operate in perpetual alarmist mode." He believes that they are opposing the solutions that have the greatest chance to work, solutions arising from growth, affluence, and technology.



D'Souza has given us an easy to read, informative overview of the terrain on which the conservative/liberal ideological battles are fought. Even a conservative doesn't have to agree with all his points to gain much from this valuable contribution.

[Rena Sherwood · Rating 1 out of 5]

Really, conservatives? This is your guy?

You certainly did a good job brainwashing him with money and fame. He wasn't born in America, and yet you have him thinking that he's a real conservative.

He has no clue how much you hate him.

Pat yourselves on the back for that.

And the Constitution was, when originally written, a racist, sexist document. That's why it was changed. Still can't get over that the Constitution can be changed, huh?

I went to two colleges. Not one kid, including myself, gave a shit about politics. We were too busy having fun and trying to pass our classes.

D'Souza moans that foreign kids on scholarships at Dartmouth were complaining about everything, including America. When he was in college, he was a good little foreign student and only complained about liberals, feminists, blacks, and homosexuality.

Since when do teenagers NOT complain about everything? That's kind of their job. And it's the only chance they get to complain about anything in their lives, since they're not allowed to do it at home, school, or work.

I couldn't even figure out what conservative values he was supposed to be teaching in these letters, besides loving America (whatever the fuck that means) and owning the libs (again, whatever the fuck that means.) If he did spell it out, I missed it with all of his bragging and kissing the asses of his white masters.

[Hannagail · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is incredible, especially because it managed to cover so much information. I was amazed how D’Souza managed to easily discuss and deliver heaps of information on a wide number of subjects, such as Capitalism, The Gun Control Debate, Feminism, Libertarians, and (This was surprisingly helpful.)Collage Professors.The chapter on affirmative action was particularly eye- opening. After reading this book I feel much more prepared to live in a world of politics.

A dog never barks at a parked car. This phrase means that nobody ever attacks something that isn’t a threat. A lot of the reviews on this book are written by leftists that are worried about what would happen if the majority of America got they’re hands on books like these. They attack D’Souza, accusing him of commuting logical fallacies such as the Straw man. This is incorrect. For every theory or statement that D’Souza makes he also gives us data or an example. He is truthful, and a talented writer. I would recommend this book to anyone, Left or Right.

[Moji · Rating 4 out of 5]

دنیش دسوزا یک محافظه کار تمام عیاره. یک سیاستمداره. و برای سیاستمدار هدف خودش مهمه و نه حقیقت.
اگر این نکته رو در ذهن داشته باشیم، میتونیم بی بخش های مختلف کتاب حرف های خوبی رو پیدا کنیم، و احتمالاً نکاتی که باهاشون مخالفیم. در مجموع کلی تونستم با دسوزا همراه بشم ولی بعضی جاها با نظراتش مخالف بودم، یا حداقل دسوزا نظرش رو شفاف و دقیق بیان نکرده بود. اگر اهل سیاست و سیاست ورزی هستید یا میخواهید بدونین ساختار سیاسی آمریکا چجوری کار می‌کنه شاید برای شروع کتاب بدی نباشه.
آقای دسوزا چنتا مستند هم داره که تقریباً همین مباحث کتاب رو پیگیری می‌کنه. اگر کتاب براتون جذاب بود، اونا رو هم میتونید ببینید‌

[Emily · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this for the first time in high school, and this book hasn’t aged well. A few interesting tidbits here and there. But a lot of straw men and ad hominem arguments as well. What could pass as a conservative merely pushing the envelope in the early 2000s is now often rudeness and insensitivity. The libertarian ideas are interesting, the rest reads as simple polemics.

[Elizabeth Swift · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a cogent argument for many conservative viewpoints! It ends with a reading list that I plan to start working on. D'Souza has a way of writing and explaining his ideas that makes it easy to understand his viewpoints. Thoroughly enjoyed his book and plan to pass it on!

[McKenna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Already planning to read it again!

[MyPaperParadise · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

[Sharon Sellah · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book should be mandatory in the school curriculum. It represents the true way in which the world should be governed, especially in a world that highly favors bogus diversity instead of merit.

[Samuel Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hilarious

[Arash Foroutan · Rating 4 out of 5]

شخصاً خودم رو بطور عام یک لیبرال کلاسیک و بطور خاص در نقشه‌ی جهت‌گیری اقتصادی-اجتماعی امروز آمریکا یک راست میانه می‌دونم؛ جایی بین یک محافظه‌کار (بیشتر از جنبه‌ی اقتصادی) و یک لیبرتارین (بیشتر از جنبه‌ی اجتماعی). دسوزا در توصیف درخشانی تفاوت این هر دو دیدگاه معتقد به آزادی رو (نقل به مضمون) اینطور بیان می‌کنه: لیبرتارین آزادی رو یک غایت فی‌نفسه قلمداد می‌کنه، در حالی که محافظه‌کار اون رو پیش شرط ضروری انتخاب درست می‌دونه.
و باز هم شخصاً با عمده دیدگاه‌های مطرح شده توسط نویسنده، به ویژه در دو سوم اول کتاب، موافقم. در موارد معدودی با دسوزا موافق نیستم و در یکی دو مورد اکیداً باهاش مخالفم. اما فارغ از نظر شخصیم، فکر می‌کنم نویسنده در شرح آنچه که می‌خواسته توضیح بده در غالب فصل‌های کتاب تا حد زیادی موفق بوده. آنچه امروز در ایالات متحده به عنوان مختصات و باورهای یک "لیبرال" شناخته میشه، بیشتر تنه به اعتقادات یک "مارکسیست فرهنگی" می‌زنه تا یک " لیبرال کلاسیک". باورهایی آرمان‌گرایانه که بر پیش‌فرض نیک‌سرشتی انسان استوارن و به جای تمرکز بر خلق و تولید، بر توزیع متمرکزن؛ اون هم نه توزیع فرصت‌ها، که توزیع نتایج. باورهایی که باعث شده لیبرال امروزی آمریکایی همیشه عصبانی و معترض باشه و بعضاً تبدیل شده به تمامیت‌خواهی که هر آنچه رو که کوچکترین زاویه‌ای با اعتقادات ارتدوکسش داشته باشه به بی‌رحمانه‌ترین شکل ممکن کنسل می‌کنه. حتی اگر با این دیدگاه‌ها و بقیه نظرات نویسنده که تا حد زیادی در فهرست عناوین فصول کتاب بازتاب یافته‌ن هم موافق نیستید، پیشنهاد می‌کنم به عنوان نوشتار کم حجمی که نسبتاً جامع، منسجم و روان دیدگاه‌های محافظه‌کاری آمریکایی رو توضیح میده مطالعه‌ی این کتاب رو از دست ندید. این رو هم در پایان اضافه کنم که کتاب بیست سال پیش نوشته شده و بنابراین تغییرات بعضاً عمده‌ای که در سالهای اخیر، به ویژه با ظهور ترامپ در عرصه‌ی سیاست در جریان محافظه‌کاری رخ داده رو شامل نمیشه.

[Toe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Funny and entertaining advice on how to remain a conservative in the looney left indoctrination camps we call colleges. D'Souza is a bright guy who adds a touch of humor to what it means to be a conservative.

He suggests that conservatives fight against "political correctness", which is actually an attempt at thought control. Certain supposedly elite schools actually made it a punishable offense to laugh at someone. They called it "inappropriately directed laughter". D'Souza suggests that people fight this nonsense by exposing the intellectual emptiness of many liberal positions. He recommends publishing a journal entitled "Feminist Thought" full of nothing but blank pages. He also recommends putting a Maya Angelou poem in the middle of a bunch of drivel to see if anyone can tell the difference.

There was a discussion in the late 80's about whether or not those with AIDS should be forced to wear some sort of identification to try to slow the spread of the deadly disease. The Dartmouth Review, a conservative student newspaper, took suggestions as to what the identification should be. One conservative professor recommended they get their butts tattooed with the words from the sign above Dante's gate to hell in The Inferno: Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here. Hilarious!