Yesterday evening conservative commentator and best-selling author Dinesh D’Souza visited the heart of liberalism: UC Berkeley. The Berkeley College Republicans hosted D’Souza’s visit, along with the Young America’s Foundation and Capitol Resource Institute. A crowd of students and others gathered on campus to hear D’Souza deliver an address on “Christianity, Islam and the War on Terror."

In a fascinating presentation, D’Souza explained his thoughts on the “new atheism” in America and the countervailing rise of radical Islam. Many atheists have proclaimed that religion is the root of so much of international violence. D’Souza posits it is not a result of religion, but the more mundane interest of land-grabbing and power (in the name of religion) that causes this violence.

One of the points that really struck me was how the rest of the world, especially the Islamic culture, perceives America. To illustrate this point, D’Souza explained that he often has to protect his young daughter from all sorts of immorality on TV, knowing that most of America does a similar thing. Most Americans do not agree with the vulgarity and immorality that is promoted in Hollywood and broadcast around the world—it is not an accurate representation of “red” America. But to the average Iraqi or Indian, that is the only representation they will ever know of our culture. This perception of America as an inherently immoral and deviant nation has given cover to the radical Islamic terrorists to attack us, in order to preserve their own culture.  

D’Souza pointed out that in many parts of the world, the slogan “Modernization, yes; Westernization, no” is quite common. The developing world wants our technology but not the accompanying moral decay. As I ruminated on this point, I thought how ironic it would be if liberals and Hollywood, who sympathize with anti-American sentiment, were actually the very part of America the rest of the world hates (or hates to love).

D’Souza also had some very interesting comments on the war in Iraq, explaining our current situation in its historical context, and the Reagan Doctrine vs. the Bush Doctrine. But to learn more about these topics, I encourage you to visit D’Souza’s web site.

And, as D’Souza acknowledged when he began his speech, it wouldn’t be Berkeley without protesters. He was referring to the three female protesters who stood along the walls of the room holding signs protesting some of D’Souza’s comments regarding slavery and the Civil Rights Act in his many books. I was impressed by the manner in which D’Souza addressed the protesters, who stood silently the entire speech, glaring at the speaker and audience. Instead of ignoring the young women when it came time for audience questions, D’Souza answered their accusations (they could hardly be considered questions based on their preachiness). With such a brilliant mind, D’Souza could easily have humiliated the pretentious students, but he answered them with the same earnestness which he answered all the questions.

After the speech, one Berkeley alumnus (and former BCR) told me that he was disappointed by the protesters. He explained that twenty-five years ago when he was on campus, the protesters would have been much more raucous—perhaps some of the young protesters these days are not as radical in their tactics as their predecessors. I can see how this would disappoint the young (and old) YAFers and CR’s who enjoy a good roaring clash with their counterparts.

The BCR’s are to be congratulated on hosting such a successful event on their campus. We should encourage these fine young conservatives to continue the valiant effort to reclaim liberalism’s mecca.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 29th, 2008 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.