D’Souza’s Trojan Horse — part 4 — VOICES for REASON

In part three, I discussed the domestic agenda that D’Souza hopes to advance by means of his book. I argued that the book is an attempt to advance a particular end: a fully Christianized America, a nation from which individual freedom has been expunged.

But ambitious ideological goals like that take time. And it is unlikely that a single book, particularly this one, could do more than prepare the ground. It is no accident that D’Souza’s subsequent book, What’s So Great About Christianity, is a non-denominational defense of faith. In this respect, The Enemy at Home seeks to reach, and measure the reaction of, two audiences that are instrumental to its long-range purpose: religious conservatives in general, and more particularly the intellectual gatekeepers of American conservatism.

Though pretending to address all Americans concerned with national security, the book is really aimed at religious conservatives. The reason D’Souza targets them is that they are most likely to respond with shame for letting liberals pollute America, and to feel the guilt he hopes to instill in his readers.

In this campaign of guilt-mongering, D’Souza emulates his jihadist brothers-in-spirit. Guilt is what will propel his agenda and what will recruit more activists for the cause (just as the jihadist condemnation of impiety in Muslim culture brings in redemption-seeking believers). Guilt is meant to galvanize religious conservatives into redoubling their already-fervent quest to inject faith into politics. D’Souza’s book exploits the very real menace of the Islamist movement (just as the jihadists themselves harp on the very real weakness and inferiority of the Muslim world as punishment for supposed impiety.) As the Islamist threat worsens, and because there’s always more Christianizing to do until America becomes a full theocracy, religious conservatives can conclude that the book’s solution is ever more pressing. (Since D’Souza’s program is worse than impotent to eliminate the Islamist threat, it can generate virtually inexhaustible fuel for Christianizing warriors.) Added to the guilt of failing to dominate politics domestically will be the mortifying sting of knowing that every failure increases the threat of terrorism.

How many susceptible religious conservatives are there? Will they take to the book? How far can the author’s theocratic agenda be pushed, and how fast? These tactical questions are part of what D’Souza hoped to answer in writing the book.

But The Enemy at Home is also an ideological trial balloon intended to test the disposition of his other target audience: the intellectual gatekeepers and arbiters of mainstream conservatism.

What did they make of it? That’s the topic of my next post.