Dinesh D’Souza has one goal in life: tearing down the Democratic Party. That’s an honorable goal, but good ole Dinesh is going about it all the wrong way. His “Dems R the Real Racists” shtick has all the appeal of a warm, milky case of syphilis. He may sell a lot of books, but nobody is really buying his arguments.
And it’s not because he’s always wrong, either. In fact, D’Souza is right more than he is wrong.
The book that D’Souza is pimping these days is “The Big Lie,” a 256-page exposé of how National Socialism influenced New Deal liberalism. As Stefan Molyneux said while interviewing D’Souza 1, Nazism and fascism were once thought of as purely right-wing affairs, while Communism was a creation of the left. However, both political philosophies support collectivism, socialist state planning, and a large military-industrial complex. In other words, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were both thoroughly modern and rationalized states 2 that just took the whole totalitarian thing to its genocidal conclusion.
National Socialism, Communism, and Liberalism are all totalitarian and modernist evils that come directly from the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. A man-centered world makes human-centric monsters.
D’Souza is right to point out that Liberalism and Nazism were buddy-buddy for a time, but he fails to mention that the very same Enlightenment that birthed the U.S. Constitution and the Republican Party also gave use to the Nuremberg Laws. That’s oversight number one.
Oversight number two is something that most American “conservatives” are guilty of. Way back in 1985, historian Jon Kukla penned an article called “Order and Chaos in Early America: Political and Social Stability in Pre-Restoration Virginia” 3. Although the main thrust of Kukla’s argument is that historian Bernard Bailyn was wrong to characterize colonial Virginia as “a veritable anarchy,” he does offer up a fact so plain and obvious that only intellectuals could disagree with it. “England had not fitted the familiar Old World stereotype since the thirteenth century,” ergo, according to historian Alan Macfarlane, “England’s social, economic, and legal systems were ‘in essence different’ from those of the Continent.” Since America’s society, its politics, and its legal system come straight from Albion, our definitions of what is “left” and what is “right” are completely circumscribed by English prejudices. Everywhere else, the free market, limited government, and civil rights are hallmarks of the non-Marxist left. D’Souza should know this, but he chooses ignorance. After all, this is a man who once wrote “Two cheers for colonialism,” a paean to the British Empire and a takedown of post-colonial thought 4.
“The wealth and power of European nations made them arrogant and stimulated their appetite for global conquest. Colonial possessions added to the prestige, and to a much lesser degree to the wealth, of Europe. But the primary cause of Western affluence and power is internal - the institutions of science, democracy, and capitalism acting in concert. Consequently, it is simply wrong to maintain that the rest of the world is poor because the West is rich, or that the West grew rich off ‘stolen goods’ from Asia, Africa and Latin America, because the West created its own wealth, and still does.”
Good on D’Souza for recognizing the BS that is subaltern studies, but shame on him for seeing all politics from the perspective of the Anglo-American tradition. The Soviet Union came out of a uniquely Russian tradition, with land power geopolitics directing much of that nation’s foreign policy under the reign of Stalin, a thuggish tsar enveloped in a red cloak.
As for Nazi Germany, the Germans themselves did not start calling their land and people “Western” until after 1918. Even then, German nationalists and conservatives like Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, a supporter of National Bolshevism, identified German culture as an intermediary between “Asiatic” Russia and the “decadent” West of the Anglo-French. Indeed, van den Bruck blamed the West for Germany’s “false” revolution of 1918.
“The German revolutionaries made the German Revolution a western-parliamentary one, a constitutional and political revolution on the English and French model. But centuries have passed since 1689 and 1789. Meantime the west has accustomed itself to liberalism. Liberalism has taught the west to turn its principles into tactics to deceive the people. The west dubs this ‘democracy,’ though it has become evident enough how all men thrive on a political diet of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” 5.
As for Marxist socialism, it is a purely Luciferian ideology with tentacles emanating from the diseased mind of a lazy Semite influenced by the individualist ethos of Jean-Jacques Rousseau 6. Marx correctly recognized that capitalism exploits the laboring classes on behalf of idle speculators, but his cure has proven far worse than the sickness itself.
In D’Souza’s rush to blame Nazism for the horror show that is the American Democratic Party in the 21st century, he overlooks the far more important fact that America’s donkeys are much closer to China’s Red Guards than the brown-shirted Stormtroopers of Weimar. A lot more Khmer Rouge and a lot less black "squadristi."
“The Big Lie” is also guilty of connecting the dots to nowhere. The book spends a lot of time talking about how the Jim Crow South, which was under the thumb of local Democrats, provided a social blueprint for Nazi Germany. D’Souza writes, “Basically the Nazis were interested in three things from America: laws on interracial marriage, laws restricting immigration on the basis of race, and the Jim Crow laws” 7. This means of course that since Southern Democrats and the Nazis agreed on all three of these things, then the righteous Republicans of the North and Midwest did not.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
First of all, anti-miscegenation laws were on the books in Massachusetts, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island prior to 1887 8. As for Maryland, Indiana, Oregon, and California, anti-miscegenation laws lasted until 1967. Once a Republican stronghold, California has only become deep blue liberal because of increased Mexican and Asian immigration—a fact that nixes D’Souza’s second argument in his Democrat-Nazis nexus.
As for immigration restrictions, the Republicans of the 1920s rushed to undo the damage done by the Republicans of the 1890s. The earlier epoch saw Republican lawmakers, who represented major business interests and corporate concerns, open their arms wide to hordes of European immigrants from Italy, Austria-Hungary, and the Russian Empire. From 1880 until 1920, roughly twenty million immigrants entered the United States legally 9. Most of these men and women took terrible jobs sweating out for fourteen hours a day in unsafe factories and sweatshops. While state-run welfare is an inferior system to worker-operated guilds and benefit societies, it still gave at least the appearance that America’s wealthier class gave two shits about ignorant workers from Poland or Sicily.
By 1924, most Republicans wanted nothing more than “normalcy,” therefore they enacted stringent tariffs against foreign competition and put in place a highly restrictive immigration policy that recognized that America is a nation of Northwestern European origins 10. These policies helped to raise wages for the average American worker and lead to a decade-long boom. America would be better off emulating the Republicans of the 1920s rather than D’Souza’s favorite Republicans of the 2010s.
“The Big Lie” also makes a big stink about the many New Deal Democrats who found inspiration in Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany. Indeed, D’Souza is correct that, for a time, both FDR and Mussolini were chummy with one another. “Mussolini and FDR were in touch even before FDR was inaugurated, and Mussolini was initially much more favorable to FDR than he was toward Hitler. In fact, the Italian press just as frequently compared Mussolini and FDR as did the American media,” D’Souza writes. D’Souza is also correct that Mussolini positively reviewed FDR’s book, “Looking Forward,” by comparing the New Deal with fascist corporatism 11.
This is correct, but, like so much of what D’Souza does, he misses the wider picture. Fascism and Communism both provided an alternative to liberal capitalism, while the New Deal sought to manage capitalism’s weaknesses through technocratic planning. While some of Roosevelt’s confidants carried around copies of Mussolini’s speeches, far more members of the American Communist Party infiltrated the Roosevelt administration. As our own N.T. Carlsbad has noted, FDR gave his approval to Communist front organizations that wanted to ban R.O.T.C. programs on campuses under the umbrella of “democracy’ 12. The New Deal coalition was also rotten with “pinkos” and outright reds like Henry Wallace 13. As a result, today’s Americans see the New Deal as a left-wing alternative to America’s older tradition of laissez-faire capitalism. The left in America has seized on the idea of expanding the New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society not because they are fascistic, but because they represent all-American social democracy. By emphasizing the Dems’ relationship to right-wing totalitarianism, D’Souza completely avoids talking about the much deeper influence of left-wing authoritarianism.
Much like the common imbecile who claims that “Antifa R the Real Fascists,” D’Souza blinds his eyes to the truth about Communism and far-Left influence in modern democracies.
As bad as all of this may be, D’Souza’s biggest blunder is the hackneyed notion that the Democrats have never changed their stripes. This idea is the main thrust of his documentary and book, “Hillary’s America” 14. For D’Souza and so many other Republican hacks trying to appeal to America’s minorities, the narrative is that the Democrats are still racists, but these days they dole out soul-crushing welfare paychecks for votes instead of riding around in KKK hoods.
D’Souza is one of those guys who talks about black voters in America being consigned to a Democratic “plantation.” This would only be true if one sincerely believes that black Americans are all legally retarded. Despite what D’Souza wants us to believe, the modern Democrats only trace their cultural politics back to the 1990s, not the 1860s. Intersectionality and a tribal hatred of white men drives modern progressive ideas, not some secret desire to maintain white elite hegemony over America’s brown, black, and yellow people. Today’s Democrats have far more in common with the African National Congress than the Democrats of the 19th or early 20th century 15.
The Southern Democrats who founded the KKK were also more socially and fiscally conservative than Ronald Reagan (D'Souza's hero), let alone Hillary Clinton 16. As for the aforementioned Knights of the Invisible Empire, they belonged to the vanguard of the Republican Party back in the 1920s because, by that point, “New Americans” (working class Catholics and Jews in the urban North) controlled the Democrat Party 17.
One can empathize with D’Souza’s goals. He is an earnest champion of the Republican Party, and as a brown man, he feels the need to spread the gospel of free markets to his fellow ethnics. For him, the end goal is the inverse of what Mussolini discovered before World War I, namely the fact that Italy’s working class rallied much quicker to the idea of nationalism and national solidarity than class warfare 18. The perfect Republican America would see all Americans thinking of themselves solely as middle-class, bourgeois citizens. Their pocketbooks would dictate their voting habits rather than their religion, their skin tone, or their sexuality.
Unfortunately for D'Souza, humans do not work that way. We are not perfectly rational creatures who put money over everything at every turn. Plus, the Democrats have successfully convinced a majority of young Americans that capitalism equals racism and inequality anyway 19, which throws a major wrench into the gospel of free markets for all. This is the main reason why color-blind, pro-market conservatism will always fail. Republicans like D’Souza are still trying to win rational arguments with (flawed) reasoning; their left-wing opponents are all about winning through emotional appeals. Sadly, emotions tend to win out, especially when eighteen-year-olds and women are encouraged to vote.
The tech economy of the twenty-first century has also done such a good job of isolating wealth into the hands of a tiny, bi-coastal minority. In effect, America is a bifurcated nation between a WASP-Jewish-Asian aristocracy and a massive class of underskilled and underemployed plebs. The coastal elites promote anti-white hatred as a type of “bread and circuses,” and those in control of American culture continue to gobble these memes up like candy and shit them back out into the awaiting mouths of semi-literate and heavily indebted college graduates.
Democrats are neither Nazis nor fascists. They’re well-paid cultural Marxists who demonize white men in order to increase their own cultural capital within a perverse and dysfunctional social ecosystem. Their true colors are socialist red and liberal yellow, not fascist black or Nazi brown.
The Democrats will always have a lock America’s minorities, even when these minorities become majorities. The Republicans, on the other hand, will always be the nation’s de-facto white party. Appeals to bad history will not change this.
All D'Souza's arguments do is confirm the Democratic belief that they own the moral high ground. You cannot beat progressive democracy by arguing in favor of liberal democracy. Rather, the true enemy is Liberalism itself.