Oh Surprise! Dinesh D’Souza — Like All Right Wingers — is a Liar!

I’m sure this will come as a shock to no one who has been awake during the past twenty years. But, turns out, Dinesh D’Souza — my old nemesis and a man of color who is married to a woman named Dixie (I kid you not, this is for real, and it matters) — is just straight making shit up now about President Obama. I mean, just straight fabricating shit. Because that’s what conservatives virtually all right-wingers do. They lie. Always. Every minute of the day. Never forget this.


19 Responses to “Oh Surprise! Dinesh D’Souza — Like All Right Wingers — is a Liar!”

  1. tell them how you really feel Tim!

    [Reply]

  2. Surprise!

    [Reply]

  3. There are plenty of conservatives who don’t lie, ever. When you make blanket statements like that which just aren’t true, I believe it allows those who are predisposed to dismiss us to do so without considering the rest of the (true!) message.

    I always speak up when someone I disagree with engages in ridiculous hyperbole so I have to do it here too. You’ve got a lot of good things to say and I don’t want to see your voice ignored as a left wing extremist.

    [Reply]

    Tim Reply:

    fair enough…I should have limited my claim to right wingers (who I actually do think almost never tell the truth about anything), but not conservatives generally

    [Reply]

    Henry Emrich Reply:

    Hmm….

    “Conservative” vs. “Right-winger”
    Clarify, please:

    [Reply]

    Gene Kelly Reply:

    Not saying that all Right-Wing Reactionaries are liars, just that most liars are Right-Wing Reactionaries(?). There are liars in all wings of political philosophies, but the Right-Wing Reactionaries are particularly annoying. I think because they support the folks with whom I disagree. (I don’t think these folks are attempting to conserve anything and prefer calling them right wing reactionaries…)

    [Reply]

    Pete Reply:

    Tim, I generally agree with you but backpedaling and saying right wingers lie goes nowhere because then if you find an honest right-winger they become a conservative and a conservative who lies becomes a right winger. It’s better to just say the conservative philosophy is based on faulty logic, racist assumptions, etc. Yeah, most conservatives will reject this logic but at least you don’t create enemies out of the people you really need to persuade. If you give up on them (and calling them names seems like you are giving up) means you are just preaching to the choir. And what’s the point of that?

    [Reply]

  4. Tim:

    1. Dinesh D’sousa is one of the Right’s (vanishingly few) token Non-Whites. To be honest, he’s not *about* stuff like intellectual honesty, facts, or even coherent argument (not that White Right-wingers are that coherent, mind you.)

    But I gotta take issue with you on one point:
    WTF does it “matter” that Dinesh D’sousa’s wife is named Dixie? Or is that a backhanded dig at the fact that she’s White? He’s guilty of “miscegenation”, as was Obama’s mother. Way to basically shit on any and all multi-“Racial” persons, and pander to the most blatantly racist aspects of the larger culture.

    If your message is against “miscegenation”, then I gotta ask: do you think that the Supreme Court striking down anti-“miscegenation” laws was a good thing, or not?

    Dinesh D’souza is fully capable of being a pseudointellectual Right-wing douchebag, without you having to resort to dragging his wife (or their “race-mixing” cohabitation) into it.

    2. Also, I have to ask this: one of your big claims is that Whites need to listen to the “wisdom” of (so-called) “People of Color” (Somebody please explain how the phrase”people of color” is somehow different — let alone BETTER — than the antiquated term “colored”???)

    Yet, here we’re confronted with a “Person of Color” who happens to also be basically, a Right-wing caricature. So which is it, Tim? Does the existence of Right-wing “People of Color” mean that they lack “wisdom”, or are there other factors at work when Non-whites go Rightist? (Like, for example, socioeconomic issues?)

    Personally, I think that the phrase “people of color” stinks of the “one-drop rule”, in that it is explicitly normative toward White (numerical) majority populations. It also serves to obscure the very real *differences* between the experiences of the various Non-“White” populations/individuals incorrectly subsumed under that term.

    One of the reasons Dinesh D’souza is an ignorant, Right-wing blowhard, is that, like it or not, the “typical” experience of Indian-Americans has tended to be at least somewhat dissimilar to that of, say, “Black” people. (For starters, they/their ancestors weren’t forcibly relocated, so as to be slaves.)

    Don’t get me wrong, Tim: I agree with large amounts of what you say — but like the old saying goes, “when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail”, and when you’re an anti-racism activist, everything looks like “Racism”.

    [Reply]

    Tim Reply:

    I mentioned Dixie not because she’s white. Because Dixie is a term for the Old South, and the mentality of the Old South is, well, the mentality of the racist right, of which D’Souza is a part. I thought that would be obvious. Sorry.

    As for “people of color” as opposed to “colored people,” two thoughts:

    1. The former was developed by such persons themselves, as opposed to the latter which was imposed by whites, so there is a difference in origin and intentionality
    2. The problem with “colored people” has always, to me at least, seemed to be that it implies the color is the most important thing about the person in question, whereas “people of color” begins with the concept of personhood/humanity and only then mentions the “of color” part, which does specify identity within a racist order, but also makes clear that the humanity is what comes first and matters most.

    Mostly, the bottom line is, for linguistic simplicity we have to have terms to describe what we see. Given the choices currently out there — which are to say “non-whites,” “minorities,” “people of color,” “colored people,” or to name each and every group to which we’re referring, each and every time — I think POC works best, but am open to discussion about it, certainly. It’s the same with any group. I mean there are over 500 indigenous nations represented in the Americas, and when we refer to them as “indigenous people,” or “first nation’s peoples,” or “indian folk,” or “native americans,” there are always people who don’t like the terms. Most indigenous folks seem to prefer having their exact nation mentioned when possible. But obviously, if one is speaking about native folks, in general, it is impossible to rattle off 500 nation names each time the reference is made. Shortcuts are necessary, if imprecise, or so it seems

    [Reply]

    Bebe V Reply:

    I would only add that “Colored People” refers strictly to Black people. A generation that grew up in the 20’s 30’s and 40’s preferred to call themselves this rather than the Negro or N-word, their post-slavery granparents were known as.

    People of Color seems to refer to all americans who are not of european ancestry. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, etc are collectively referred to as People of Color.

    The term Women of Color is also used in the cosmetics industry regarding hard to find cosmetics formulated for women who don’t have pale skin.

    [Reply]

    Henry Emrich Reply:

    Tim:

    1. Agreed about the shortcuts, in principle:
    However, that still doesn’t address the fact that there are real differences between different populations of “people of color”, and variations in their experiences which often do effect how members of those various demographics relate to one another.

    A quick (if somewhat dated) example would be to go back to the L.A. Riots after the Rodney King verdict, and take note of the fact that store owners (many of them Korean) were, at least occasionally, not on the “same page” with Latino and Black rioters.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_armed_resistance_in_the_Los_Angeles_riots

    Frankly, to even *attempt* to subsume those two very disparate populations under the umbrella-term “People of Color” obscures more than it shows, if that makes any sense. Moreover — at least in this case — the “korean Armed resistance” thing was *not* directly attributable to “systemic racism”, so much socioeconomic factors. To do anything substantive against racism, requires NOT merely addressing the “systematic” variety about which you spend so much time talking, but ALSO the various misconceptions/stereotypes/prejudices which different “people of color” have about one another.
    And trust me, Tim: they exist — just as much as various sub-sets of “White America” have misconceptions about one another (Gay vs. Straight, for example).

    [Reply]

    Henry Emrich Reply:

    2. As to “Dixie was a term for the Old South” — how is that at all relevant to anything? Dinesh D’sousa is a lot of things, but a Neo-Confederate, he ain’t. Even if he was, that *still* wouldn’t have anything whatsoever to do with your criticism of his “truthiness” (smirk).

    Don’t get me wrong: this is the same gripe I have with Anti-Obama folk who assert that his middle name (Hussein) is some kind of cosmically-significant badge of anti-American-ness, or some such bullshit).
    Then again, I put the blame for that one sqarely on “the Left”/Progressives as well, in that they should never have PERMITTED the “B. Hussein Obama” thing to gain traction, without at least pointing out the racism/xenophobia/Islamophobia inherent in it.

    Whatever you were going for with the “Dixie” snark, you missed. It was only “obvious” if we assume that *every* use of the term “Dixie” is a racist dog-whistle, or paen to the plantation lifestyle.

    But then, what to make of THIS:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dixie_Cups

    (Hint: these women are hardly Neo-Confederates, as far as I can tell.)

    We’re supposed to get all hot and bothered about Dinesh D’souza being sloppy, but then you go and subliminally train us to think that every use of the term “Dixie” is subliminal racism, or whatever it was that you were implying.

    Epic fail, Tim.

    Bebe V Reply:

    Henry,

    Your point about everything looking like a nail also applies to those multi-cultural people and the “bi-racial movement” attacking every analysis about american society as “one drop rule”. If you lack the understanding that One Drop Rule was created by the ethnic majority (whites at the time) to restrict ethnic minorities from participating in the perks of white privilege even though some of them were basically white in appearance…then you shouldn’t be slinging the term “one drop rule” around.

    [Reply]

    Sandeep Reply:

    <>>

    As a South Asian American, I have a couple thoughts on D’Souza and South Asian Americans in general.

    1-The recent tragedy at Rutgers-my alma mater-had really hit close to home for me when I learned the young man commited suicide because of the actions a Indian guy raised in New Jersey. This tragedy helped me learn what it is like to be a Black person who sees news stories about Blacks commiting crimes on the 11 o’clock news. You have a sense of collective blame, the individual who commits the crime is not only at fault but rather it is everyone who looks like him that is at fault. Did White folks recieve collective blame for Matthew Shepard’s tragic and brutal death? In the eyes of a lot White folks that my beliefs in gay marriage, the repealing of DADT, and my close friendships with homosexuals will not change their view of me. All because of the action of someone who’s only connection to me is that we have the same skin complexion. This tragedy shows South Asians will be just as burdened with collective blame as Blacks are. South Asians do have a different story to tell than Blacks, but we share many themes.

    2-With Bobby Jindal in the Louisiana governor’s office, the possible election of Nikki Haley in South Carolina, and the publication D’Souza’s drivel you may think that we are all right wing conservatives. That’s far from the truth. We are more progressive than these guys make us out to be. Afterall, I don’t think the right will be too fond of our various religious beliefs. I can’t see Christine O’Donnel or Sarah Palin be too comfortable talking about religion with some who believes in a god that has the head of an elephant and rides around on a rat. South Asians overwhelmingly vote Democrat. We concentrate in Blue States, in an around major cities.

    There are plenty of progressive South Asian writers out there as well. One of my favorite is Vijay Prashad, who is a professor at Trinity College in Conn. D’Souza’s South Asian background is not the cause of his racist ranting.

    [Reply]

  5. That’s not even an interesting lie-how the hell did he come up with that? Passing the time takin’ a dumpy?

    [Reply]

  6. D’Souza seems confused. More about who he is supposed to be, and I can’t imagine trying to establish oneself in a country that is foreign in a birthright sense. It must be tough…but he goes way too far, and neglects his responsibilities as a public-ish figure. I liked in your ’96 debate with him, when he blatantly glazed over a really important point regarding racial injustice regarding US immigrants’ “success stories.” He’s learned the way to conservative (read: angry) America’s heart. Just say what you think you’re supposed to, and forget reality. It’s that time-honored US American tradition of the American Dream that reads: if you just work hard enough, you can succeed. Which of course allows us to place blame for what we collectively consider failure on the individual, instead collective insanity and inequality. Maybe I’m off, but this just seems too bass-ackwards.

    [Reply]

    Bebe V Reply:

    Not to mention Dinesh D’Souza and many physicians, store owners, hotel owners in America have migrated from societies with a caste system that may be equally as rigid (maybe more) as our own. Dahlits and other Dark skinned individuals are treated harshly and believed to deserve it. This probably fits right in with conservative ideology.

    [Reply]

  7. Hello Tim,

    I heard your address to the University of Alaska Anchorage (or the broadcast of it anyway on our public radio station). I really liked what you had to say, so I searched out your blog to read more.

    I was disappointed to read this: “Because that’s what conservatives do. They lie. Always.” I consider myself to be very liberal and I don’t disagree with the things you said about Dinesh D’Souza. But that kind of hyperbole is something I associate with the Tea Party movement and doesn’t seem all that helpful in bringing people to see your side of things. Granted, maybe that’s not what you’re trying to do. I’m not familiar enough yet with your writing, so maybe you are the liberal’s answer to Limbaugh. But given how valuable I found your insights on race, this kind of blanket black & white (no pun intended) and untrue statement seems to blunt your message somehow. Conservatives lie, *always*?? Really?

    [Reply]

  8. Tim:

    You’re the last person on earth who could ever criticize anyone else for lying, and in fact saying that all right-wingers lie all the time is just yet another example of your lying.

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply