On page 56, D’Souza writes, “It’s a riveting story, and told in a way you haven’t heard before, but if you care about America’s prosperity and security, I might as well forewarn you. Be very afraid.” I almost stopped reading but felt it was my responsibility to continue.
D’Souza is an educated man. He’s president of King’s College in NYC, a seeming incubator for the Christian right-wing, attracting students with aspirations to influence the world by spreading the “truth.” King’s tagline: “At King’s College, we believe the truth can change the world.” It ties in nicely with their mission statement: “Through its commitment to the truths of Christianity and a biblical worldview, The King’s College seeks to transform society by preparing students for careers in which they help to shape and eventually to lead strategic public and private institutions, and by supporting faculty members as they directly engage culture through writing and speaking publicly on critical issues.” He’s an English major (Dartmouth ’83) with an ideology and a brain to back it up.
In The Roots of Obama’s Rage, despite his lack of credentials, D’Souza plays the psychologist theorizing that Obama’s behavior (e.g., he jettisoned the American flag lapel pin, the badge of the true patriot) is evidence of his contempt toward America and his deep-seated hostility toward the American way of life–or at least the means by which we’ve arrived at it. Waxing Freudian, D’Souza argues, President Obama has internalized his absentee Kenyan father’s “anti-colonial” perspective, which, in a nutshell is anti-imperialist and socialist. Anti-colonialists are people (e.g., Kenyans like Obama’s father) who are angry and upset because Europeans invaded and pillaged their countries. They want to be self-determining and to re-claim what is (was) theirs. This is a bad thing and it gets worse: Obama is not only sympathizer, but rather he’s one of them.
He methodically tests the predictive value of his Obama-as-anti-colonialist theory by pulling from the “data” that which best fits his theory (this is a “no-no” among actual scientists). For example, because Obama has, at times, been apologetic and contrite for the United States’ actions abroad, D’Souza suggests that this is evidence of his contempt for America.
D’Souza has determined that the fundamental goal of the Obama presidency is to reduce America’s stature in the world. He want the U.S. to pay. for its own imperialism and, more generally, for European imperialism.
His “globalization” policies are to be feared as this would mean that the U.S. would become permeated by and permeable to all sorts of multicultural influences, economic, religious and so on and the wealth of the few will be systematically transferred to the wretched. Aside from the weakened position of the U.S. once its fate is tied up with that of other countries (is this not the case already?), Christian conservatives like D’Souza are outspoken critics of globalization because it would mean a diminution of Christianity’s status as the “national religion.” D’Souza doesn’t directly address this. However, there are many references to Obama’s apparent lack of aversion to things Muslim (e.g., his advocacy of the mosque near the 9/11 site).
This quote sums up D’Souza’s argument: “…Obama is on a systematic campaign against the colonial system that destroyed his father’s dreams. With a kind of suppressed fury, he is committed to keep going until he has brought that system down. And according to his father’s anti-colonial ideology, which Obama has internalized for himself, that system is the military and economic power of the United States of America” (p. 199).
He’s an enraged, bitter rogue surrounded by sycophants who needs to be brought down pronto. “It’s time to act,” says D’Souza. “Yes, we need change, and this time the change we need is to change the man in the White House. American isn’t the rogue elephant: Obama is. It’s not a matter of putting him out of his misery; it’s a matter of putting him out of our misery…we had better get rid of the whole crew before they take us off the cliff” (p. 218).
So there you have it. Thanks to D’Souza we now know who the real Obama is, what he intends to do and why. But here’s an important question: What are the roots of D’Souza’s rage in writing this book?
I hypothesize (and I am a psychologist) that since he’s Indian and was raised in India, he’s suppressing a deep-seated feeling of inadequacy instilled in him by the experience of growing up in a British colony–a conquered, victimized people. But instead of acting on the basis of an inner hatred of European imperialists (like Obama), instead of raging against the oppressor and aggressor, he’s become identified with the aggressor.
Many victims of abuse become abusers themselves, which establishes a cycle of abuse. Diagnosis: D’Souza suffers from “fearful little man” syndrome. By becoming the bully’s best friend, he is trying to reclaim his power.
