D'Souza's Liberalism One and Two

D'Souza makes a distinction between what he calls "liberalism one" and "liberalism two" the the former relating to the rights of man and the later with western decadence. He then admonishes the West to show its traditional face as an antidote to Islamic radicalism. I have my doubts that such a distinction exists. For example, thanks to the freedom of the press, D'Souza publishes his books even while the pornographers publish their books. Further, I would argue, it is not foreign policy conservatism that brought the USSR to its knee and opened the PRC to trade. It was decades of cultural liberalism, especially Hollywood movies but also western-originating jazz and rock music as well as the underground samizdats. I think the People's Republic of China is making valiant efforts to separate political liberalism from cultural and economic liberalism, with, ironically enough, their tolerance towards the latter rather than the former, but I have my doubts as to whether this will last. Freedom is a fragile flower, and when you take away liberalism and liberalism two dies and vice versa. For me, there is a sort of "so what" quality to D'Souza's speculation. Even if radicals were motivated to take up arms against America because of MTV (instead of more plausibly especially if we were to listen to the words of people like Osama our Middle East policies), what then? Do we really want to reign in "liberalism 2" in reaction to extremists who hate us? Short of embracing Calvin's Calvinism as national policy, how in the heck can we?