Britney’s rubbish, but so’s the idea of making common cause with ‘moderate Muslims'
The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility For 9/11 is the geopolitical If I Did It. As you may recall, that was the title of the artful O.J. Simpson tome no sooner announced than yanked from the warehouses and pulped by its publisher: O.J. isn’t saying he did do it but if he had done it he’d have done it like this. Likewise, Dinesh D’Souza’s new book: he’s not the jihad’s marketing consultant but, if he were, this is pretty much the critique of America he’d have offered to buck up the lads in the cave on Sept. 10, 2001.
It’s impressive stuff. He’s rounded up a ton of denunciations of the Great Satan’s appetite for “fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and trading with interest” (to cite Osama bin Laden himself). Quote after quote about America’s godless sodomites jostle on the page like eye-catching young lads in a San Francisco bathhouse on a Saturday night in 1978: human rights for homosexuals? “What human? What rights?” scoffs a columnist for the Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar. After a couple of pages of such zingers, D’Souza usually feels obliged to distance himself:
“However imcharitable these sentiments...” And occasionally one can almost hear his editor at Doubleday urging the author to make the distancing a little less perfunctory:
“However uncharitable these sentiments— and I find them appallingly so...”
Much better! Distance-wise, that’s a good foot and a half. D’Souza’s publisher has taken out advertisements at U.S. conservative magazines under the slogan “Let The Debate Begin,” but debate-wise his conservative con-
freres seem to have stampeded for the cone of silence. So let me tiptoe in. D’Souza lays his argument out on page one: “The cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the non-profit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world .. .Without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened.” American conservatives should understand that “moderate Muslims” around the world are their natural allies in resisting “the enemy at home.”
Er, okay. Before we get to that, let’s acknowledge what D’Souza gets right. He’s correct to bemoan what he calls the “ethnocentrism” of much Western analysis of Islam. Take Patty Murray, Washington state’s Democratic senator, and her bizarre assertion that Osama bin Laden’s popularity is due to EU-Canadian-sized social-welfare programs:
“He’s been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building daycare facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful.”
This is not just, as they say in Britain, bollocks on stilts but bollocks on such dizzying stilts as to put Senator Murray’s head way up in cloud-cuckoo-land. Al-Qaeda has never built a single “daycare facility,” and they never
will. Why? Because they believe Islam, like most traditional societies (including ours, until a generation or two back) already has a perfectly good “daycare facility”: the home. For a mother to leave her children to be raised by strangers while she goes to work at the convenience store would not strike most Muslims as societal progress. Maybe they’re wrong, maybe they’re right. But we ought at least to see the difference. Especially if we’re one of only a hundred out of 300 million people who get to be a U.S. senator.
Patty Murray was a relatively lonely cheerleader for Osama bin Laden’s daycare program. But D’Souza identifies a much more widespread and dangerous form of “ethnocentrism” in the photographs from Abu Ghraib. For hysterical liberal ninnies, this was (and remains) a shocking exposé of torture. The question for Western commentators was very simple: how far up the chain of command did authorization for these revolting techniques go? Faced with a guy being led around on a dog collar with female panties on his head and a banana sticking out his butt, the anti-war crowd wanted to know whether the attorney general had issued a memo on the use of tropical fruits in interrogation techniques and whether there was a smoking-gun invoice at the Pentagon revealing massive bulk purchases from Victoria’s Secret. The larkier conservative commentators scoffed: anyone who’d spent 10 minutes in an Iraqi—or Syrian or Egyptian or Saudi
or Yemeni—prison would not regard the Abu Ghraib scenes as torture.
We scoffers were only half-right. In the Arab world, the “shocking exposé of torture” was shocking not because it was torture but because it exposed something worse. “Most Muslims did not view it as a torture story at all,” writes D’Souza. “Abu Ghraib was one of Saddam Hussein’s most notorious prisons. Tens of thousands of people were held there and many were subject to indescribable beatings and abuse. Twice a week, there were hangings outside the prison. This is what Muslims mean by torture, not the lights-on, lights-off version that American liberals are so indignant about... The main focus of Islamic disgust was what Muslims perceived as extreme sexual perversion.” Saddam’s guards pulling out your fingernails is torture. But a nobody like Lynndie England, a female soldier and adulteress, boozed up and knocked up and posing naked for photographs with paralytic casual acquaintances and making men masturbate in front of her and emailing
the photographs all over the Internet, all that to Muslims represented something far darker than a psycho dictator: “It was just for fun,” reported Paul Arthur, the military investigator who interviewed Private England. “They didn’t think it was a big deal.” That’s the point: a society in which a drunken pregnant adulterous fornicating exhibitionist woman is a soldier, and it’s no big deal.
When the Ayatollah Khomeini dubbed America “the Great Satan,” he was making a far more perceptive critique than Canadians and Europeans who dismiss the U.S. as the Great Moron. Satan is a seducer, and so is America. And, when Muslims see Lynndie England, they don’t like where that leads.
I agree, up to a point. Remember a year or two back when Janet Jackson’s nipple put in
an appearance at the Super Bowl? Everyone was affronted, and the Federal Communications Commission launched an investigation. But it wasn’t the nipple. I like nipples. Bring ’em on. The more the merrier. What struck me about the Super Bowl “entertainment” was how hollow and joyless and mechanical it was in the 20 minutes leading up to the offending nipple. It was sleazy and trashy when it was still fully clothed. I’m with that Maclean’s cover story on our skanky tweens: the sensibility of much of our pop culture is loathsome and degrading. D’Souza makes a good observation about pornography: every society has it, but you used to have to pull your hat down and turn your collar up and skulk off to the seedy part of town. Now it’s provided as a service in your hotel room by every major chain. That’s a small sign of a big shift.
Where I part company is in his belief that this will make any difference to the war on terror. In what feels like a slightly dishonest passage, the author devotes considerable space to the writings of Sayyid Qutb, the intellectual progenitor of what passes for modern Islamist “thought.” “Qutb became fiercely anti-American after living in the United States,” writes D’Souza without once mentioning where or when this occurred: New York in the disco era? San Francisco in the summer of love? No. It was 1949—the year when America’s lascivious debauched popular culture produced Doris Day, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and South Pacific. And the throbbing pulsating nerve centre of this sewer of sin was Greeley, Colo., where Sayyid Qutb went to a dance: “The room convulsed with the feverish music from the gramophone. Dancing naked legs filled the hall, arms draped around the waists, chests met chests, lips met lips...”
As I wrote in Maclean’s a couple of months back: “In 1949, Greeley, Colo., was dry. The dance was a church social. The feverish music was Frank Loesser’s charm song Baby, It’s Cold Outside...” Esther Williams and Ricardo Montalban introduced it in the film Neptune’s Daughter.
Look, if it would persuade ’em to hang up the old suicide-bomber belts, I’d lay off the Tupac CDs and Charlie Sheen sitcoms and Britney Spears navel piercings. But you’ll have to prise Baby, It’s Cold Outside from my cold dead hands and my dancing naked legs. As I said back then, “A world without Baby, It's Cold Outside will be very cold indeed.”
From a sophisticated writer, the central proposition of this book is absurd—that Western conservatives should make common cause with “moderate Muslims.” That would be merely the inversion of the freak-show alliance between the godless left and the
jihadists embodied by the participation in one of the big “anti-war” rallies of a group called “Queers For Palestine.” “Moderate” Islam is preferable to jihadism, has many admirable qualities and many less so. But attempting to align our social values with theirs would be the right’s strain of appeasement and just as doomed. The reality is that Islam sees our decadence not as a threat but as an opportunity. For the West to reverse the gains of the cultural left would not endear us to Islam but would make us better suited to resisting its depredations. We should reject Britney because she’s rubbish, not as a geopolitical strategy. M
The story you want is part of the Maclean’s Archives. To access it, log in here or sign up for your free 30-day trial.
Experience anything and everything Maclean's has ever published — over 3,500 issues and 150,000 articles, images and advertisements — since 1905. Browse on your own, or explore our curated collections and timely recommendations.WATCH THIS VIDEO for highlights of everything the Maclean's Archives has to offer.