Dinesh D'Souza is afforded standing as one of the young gun intellectuals in the conservative movement. In this article from Forbes Magazine, he offers a psycho-analytical glimpse into Obama’s relationship with his father.

D'Souza opens with a direct criticism of Obama, saying "Obama is clueless about business." With the same kind of deeply profound analysis, I would suggest that D'Souza as psychoanalyst shouldn't quit his day job.

D'Souza attempts to show the way in which the father/son relationship perversely guides what D'Souza believes are Obama’s un-American politics and “anticolonial" worldview. He then ascribes to Obama every policy and principle that lays outside of D'Souza's supposedly mainstream neo-conservative doctrine, thereby affirming himself as the keeper of truth and the American way while conveniently defining any other worldview as being not only outside the mainstream but un-American, as well.

It makes for an interesting read, but it fails in terms of the intellectual vigor that is abandoned by D'Souza in sole pursuit of presenting a prima facie case that neo-conservative doctrine is “settled truth.” In this, President Obama is presented as little more than a straw man stand-in for all who would dare oppose the neo-conservative dogma. Obama (and, more importantly, any other "liberals" who differ strongly with D'Souza's brand of neo-conservative craziness) can then be conveniently delegitimized as being absent a realistic, "American" worldview. It very conveniently allows D'Souza to define the terms for debate in which no real debate of the issues is allowed. On one side, we have D'Souza and the neo-cons - the true, legitimate Americans. On the other side stands everyone else, represented by the straw man Obama.

First, D'Souza makes great effort to not-so-subtly establish the point that Obama and his father are both "un-American." The senior Obama was born and raised in Kenya (a "Luo tribesman," fer chrissakes! Protect the women and children!) And, yeegads, the younger Obama not only idolized his father, but he "spent his formative years--the first 17 years of his life--off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa."

It seems that Obama's entire worldview is shaped and remains wholly intact as learned at the feet of this "anti-colonialist" father, according to D'Souza. In his conclusion, he even warns: "Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman from the 1950's."

Can't get much more un-American than that, eh? 

Thank God, D'Souza would say, that there remain American intellectuals iike himself who hold firm to what he implies are the mainstream American ideals and principles in the face of this assault by the un-American "anti-colonialists" and "socialists" and all manner of other "foreigners and traitors" who might challenge D'Souza's worldview on its merits.

D'Souza takes a great deal of ink to lay out the arguments against the neo-conservative American Exceptionalism that he promotes. It's always a dangerous exercise to allow the opposition to frame your position in a policy debate, but to his credit D'Souza manages a pretty accurate description of the arguments against his neo-conservative doctrine. For example:

"Anticolonialists hold that even when countries secure political independence they remain economically dependent on their former captors. This dependence is called neocolonialism, a term defined by the African statesman Kwame Nkrumah (1909--72) in his book Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. Nkrumah, Ghana's first president, writes that poor countries may be nominally free, but they continue to be manipulated from abroad by powerful corporate and plutocratic elites. These forces of neocolonialism oppress not only Third World people but also citizens in their own countries. Obviously the solution is to overthrow the oppressors. This was the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. and many in his generation, including many of my own relatives in India.

"Obama Sr. was an economist, and in 1965 he published an important article in the East Africa Journal called "Problems Facing Our Socialism." Obama Sr. wasn't a doctrinaire socialist; rather, he saw state appropriation of wealth as a necessary means to achieve the anticolonial objective of taking resources away from the foreign looters and restoring them to the people of Africa. For Obama Sr. this was an issue of national autonomy. "Is it the African who owns this country? If he does, then why should he not control the economic means of growth in this country?"

Although D'Souza takes the opportunity to introduce some inflammatory rhetoric in describing the "anticolonialist" position, he does manage to cover the bases pretty well. Indeed, most liberals would look at the "anticolonial" positions outlined above and elsewhere in the article and respond quite correctly with "Ok, what's your point?" There is, after all, a lot of the un-American, "anti-colonialist" worldview described here that even I find to be legitimately posited. Yet, my father was not a Luo tribesman. Indeed, my father was a large Polack tavernkeeper who served in WWII and was born and raised in Independence - yes, INDEPENDENCE!, - Wisconsin. And I've never been further abroad than Toronto.

Having constructed the President as an un-American straw man, however, D'Souza avoids taking any responsibility to defend his dogma. Once you paint the argument as "We Americans" against "the other guys," you conveniently avoid any serious discussion of the issues. You can, in fact, present the other side's arguments (as D'Souza does above) with an understanding that they are discounted out-of-hand because they do not carry the imprimatur of the "true Americans."

It's a coward's approach to defending your beliefs. Indeed, in D'Souza's case, it allows him to say, without equivocation, the following in his conclusion:

"Colonialism today is a dead issue. No one cares about it except Obama. He is the last anticolonial. Emerging economies such as China, India, Chile and Indonesia have solved the problem of backwardness; they are exploiting their labor advantage and growing much faster than the U.S. If America is going to remain on top, it has to compete in an increasingly tough environment."

These few statements alone could open the door to a discussion that would explore just what it means to "compete in an increasingly tough environment." We need to be able to take a look at "American Exceptionalism" and the neoconservative doctrine and explore the impact this kind of imperial worldview has on the world and here at home. I would welcome such a discussion, and am prepared to show the numerous ways that our "New American Century" Imperialists have all but bankrupted this country and destroyed the middle class in America.

But, unfortunately, cowards like D'Souza will have none of it. Instead, they wrap themselves in gimmickry and diversions like fake psychoanalysis of others to avoid the responsibility of actually defending themselves and their crackpot ideas.

This article is a massive failure in terms of contributing anything to an intellectual discussion of the issues that confront us. It's a wonder any self-respecting editor ever let it get past his desk. It would be far better for Forbes and other media to shove the intellectual cowards like D'Souza aside and make room for a more vigorous discussion of economics that insists everyone defends their positions. After all, our future as Americans depends upon knowing where we are going and what we are doing. We must, at last, have sufficient faith in our own convictions to afford others the opportunity to challenge them.

A democracy is a marketplace of ideas. As in any marketplace, you will find hucksters and snake-oil salesmen like D'Souza. We do well to offer them no more than the respect and attention they deserve whilst we instead go about our business of governing these United States of America. Publishing tripe like this as a cover article in one of our major business journals is a waste of resources. Indeed, using D'Souza's method of analysis, I could say that some would tell you it's un-American.