The Post-multicultural West

"Multiculturalism" as a normative philosophy seems to be on the way out in the West. Western Europe, which long espoused the idea as a kind of atonement for the sins (perceived and actual) of Colonialism. But lately, it seems that the idea is coming under increased criticism and may be drawing its final breaths as a basis for policy.

Multiculturalism has long been attacked by conservatives in the West, particularly in the US. The laundry list of complaints range from its being a cult of ignorance (see here) to being an insidious idea that is destroying the country(here). However, when heads-of-state in Europe started declaring Multiculturalism to be an abject failure, that got my attention.

First it was Germany's Angela Merkel (here), and then France's Sarkozy (here) and the UK's Cameron (here). It seems that these bastions of relativistic cultural laissez-faire are undergoing a fundamental change-of-heart. Even the Dutch are seriously questioning their world-famous tolerance, as made evident by the increased popularity of Wilder's party, the PPV (see earlier posting "Prescient Moments").

But what about the your average stalwart liberal pundits? What do they have to say? Surely they are defending this uber-enlightened idea. Well, it seems many of them are abandoning the masochism of the past, and are standing up for their own culture and displaying what can only be described as chauvinism (a behavior once monopolized by right-wing radio jerks).

Here's liberal gadfly, Bill Maher's take (click here). Here's Chris Hitchens destroying a classic masochistic, self-declared Marxist trying to blame Western Civilization for terrorism (click here). And finally, here is a British liberal named Pat Condell giving his two pence worth (click here).

Given what I see as a broad-based rejection of classic normative Multiculturalism with a capital "M", it is alarming to me that multiculturalism as a description is increasingly accurate in the very countries mentioned above. Immigrant populations have burdgeoned as indigenous European population contract dramatically, changing the culture and values of many European countries (here). This seems a sure formula for unrest.

Looking ahead, I think Western countries will be placing a much greater emphasis on integration rather than on the ever-elusive "mutual respect."

Extreme Makeover, World History Edition

Recently I picked up a brochure from an Islamic literature booth in a local mall. The pamphlet was entitled "Jihad," so of course I couldn't resist. While reading the column labeled "Is Jihad Holy War?" I about choked. You can read it below [click on the image to enlarge].

Let me summarize it for you: we Muslims didn't fight wars for religion until we learned it from you!

Well, that is an interesting interpretation of history. Simultaneously full of blame and void of knowledge. The author must have been either purposefully dishonest, or completely unacquainted with his own core religious texts and traditions.

I'll let the ever-erudite Bernard Lewis address this issue here. Please excuse his coughing. He's old.

...to the Shores of Tripoli

There seems to be a lot of discussion these days about the centrality of Christianity in the founding of the United States. This week I came across a compelling piece of text dating from the closing days of the 18th Century.

In those days, US shipping in the Mediterranean was being harassed and pillaged by pirates of the Barbary States of northern Africa. John Adams sent an emissary to work out a treaty. They eventually struck a deal and the Treaty of Tripoli was signed on November 4, 1796. Article 11 of the treaty reads:

• As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen...

The treaty was signed by the President, and ratified unanimously by congress.

Comments?

Prescient Moments

Here's an excerpt from a previous posting I made a few months ago:

• 'I predict that immigration will play an important part in coming elections throughout Europe. Don't be surprised to see parties with anti-immigraiton policies make significant gains, despite repeated charges of of "racism," "xenophobia," and "fascism" that will certainly be hurled against them relentlessly.'

It goes without saying, I wasn't very shocked at the results of the recent Dutch elections. The winner of the election was the Liberal Party (which, confusingly, is actually the center-right party) with 31 seats. Labor came in a VERY close second with 30 seats. Nothing too earthshaking so far. However, my prediction proved accurate when the far-right PPV (Freedom Party) more than doubled their number of seats to 24. It is very likely that a Liberal (read:conservative)/PPV coalition will end up ruling what is widely considered the most liberal country on the most liberal continent.

To really grasp the importance of the PPV, you must understand the person at the center of the party, Geert Wilders. He is the lone face (and Bouffant) of his party. He created the party, and he runs the party. He floats on a raft of typical conservative issues: low taxes, emphasis on sovereignty, etc. However, his extreme views on immigration, particularly from Islamic countries, is where he is unique among powerful European political parties (the BNP is not powerful). He has stated openly that he hates Islam (though is keen to emphasize that he doesn't hate Muslims). He is calling for a five year moratorium on immigration from non-Western countries. He has motioned for the Koran to be banned in the Netherlands. He even directed a short film called "Fitna" which basically argues that Islam and terrorism go together like falafel and flatbread (this film is available on the internet. Just Google it).

It will be interesting to see what role the PPV will assume in the next government, and how far Mr. Wilders is allowed to enact his platform. More broadly, it will be interesting to see which direction the richer, more structured Germanic countries go as their less disciplined neighbors (and fellow EU members) to the south continue to implode economically.

A Kindred Spirit

Remember a few weeks back when I went on my "Conspiracy theories are dangerous" tirade (see "New World (Dis)order" from March 1st)? Well, I read an excellent article today on the Foreign Policy website that I can only assume was inspired by reading my brilliant posting. There are some suprising similarities between our commentary on this topic.

The author echos my point that these ideas are dangerous and that we dismiss them "at our peril." He also seems to support my position that these theories are becoming more popular. He quotes from a book entitled "Voodoo Histories" which says "we in the West are currently going through a period of fashionable conspiracism." This book is now on my To Read list.

The article gives some hope for a rational future though. He notes "the rise of a new culture of fact based skepticism" including "fact checking websites," "high-profile anti-conspiracists," and organizations like the British group "Skeptics in the Pub," which the author describes as "a drink-fueled debating society with a strong anti-conspiracy bent."

You know you're in dire straights when the best hope of honest discourse comes from British pubs!

Anyway, read the posting here if you have a minute.

What IS the financial reform bill?

As you have the left/right debate always, you develop the conditioning to always debate/disagree. So you learn to argue based on the camp you're in.

Recently, the two camps began arguing over the Financial Reform Bill 2009:
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/AYO09D44_xml.pdf
A very time consuming endeavor, but if you want to really make up your own mind on the debate, you gotta read that bad boy.

Don't read into the source, but here is the headline:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/11/house-financial-regulator_n_389062.html
The Democrats are calling the bill a gift, and the Republicans are the party of No. The Republicans say this bill is the devil, and the Democrats are getting their way, and continue to push the country left. So, according to eachother, the opposition would ruin us if they are had power. Anyway, the economist on the left and the right come up with their own numbers, based on their study subjects and the economic theory he/she uses when studying a bill.

So we either have to learn to see through camp colored glasses, interpret their meanings, and split the difference, or we have to learn the actual discipline to a certain level of proficiency.
I believe the debate more correctly should be "Does central bank style Keynesian economics work for what we want, or would we be better off with a more hands off lasseiz-faire Adams approach?" And which style is the reform bill?

Two anecdotes on race relations in America

A few years ago I lived in Hampton Roads, an area in southern Virginia. While eating at a restaurants I saw a group of 12 to 15 people eating lunch together and having a good time. The members of the group were mostly middle aged and were a mix of black and white people. As far as I could tell, there was nothing at all exceptional about the group; they were probably just employees at a local business having a lunch meeting.


I now live in the Mountain West region of the US. I have a neighbor who is of a racial minority. This neighbor played on the school football team when he was an undergrad and has a very affable personality. Now, still at the same school, he is getting a joint Masters of Public Administration-Juris Doctorate degree. Last semester some people in one of his classes, most of whom were white, were talking about race relations in America. My neighbor told them that they have no idea what it's like to be a minority in the US. Despite all his success, he apparently still feels... Well, I don't know exactly how he feels, but I get the impression that he thinks there is still some room for improvement.

From Ability to Needs

After some study on the subject Socialism, I have come to some conclusions, but maybe even more questions. I begin this line of questioning that I may have a better understanding of it. Let's begin with observations then move on to the questions:

To me, the basis of Socialism seems to be the underlying assumption that man is a social creature that progresses in society better as a whole. That the individuality of the person is discouraged so that he may better utilize his skills to serve the community. The security, health, and care falls on the collective instead of the individual.

To me, placing the community above yourself and your family is not a trait naturally found in man. We all agree that man is fallible and corruptible, you can use religious or historical texts and find the percentage of actually good people to be quite small. Unquestioned and unchallenged authority more often than not leads to some form of dictatorship.

My question is this, can you ever really take the individuality out of a person? Does Socialism and Capitalism really boil down to this one difference? Is it my stuff or our stuff? What of the person who is in charge of handing out the communal stuff? What is in place to guarantee the stuff gets handed out exactly and only according to needs? How do we keep that system from turning into one of favors and priviledges? Why is it that in past socialist experiments, the end result was always one where there was a ruling and favored class at the expense of the community? Who is in charge of a socialist community? Is it the collective and do they vote on everything? Do they always elect a leader and if so, is that contradictory to socialism? Does Socialism believe in the inherent "goodness" in man? The best case I have come across was the Jewish Kibbutz, that did have a communal approach but ended after the government stopped subsidizing the communes. Even at the end, the Kibbutz members had their own clothes, food, and other items.

Is it as black and white as, "Is man an Individualist or a Collectivist?" Are there any in betweens? Because we can all agree that man is a social animal. He would not be able to farm, fish, and build his shelter if he were by himself. So he needs the support of the community. But is that individual drive to better his position for safety, security, and, dare I say, social standing, necessarily a bad thing?

Age and Place on the Political Spectrum

I saw a most interesting posting on one of my favorite blogs (cominganarchy.com) which I would like to share (and which they had copied from somewhere else). It graphically displays political affiliation by age. I don't really have a comment to make. It's just food for thought. The posting even offer some possible explanations for this relationship.


You can read about the (non-scientific) method they used to gather the data set in the original posting here.


Enjoy!

__________________________________________________

Extremism in the defense of liberty?

People on the left want abortion rights, but they want to limit gun rights. People on the right want their guns and they want to ban abortion. Neither side seems to have monopoly on liberty.

After proposition 8 passed, churches were vandalized. After the health care bill passed, the offices of Democrats were vandalized. People at the extremes seem to act similarly regardless of their beliefs.

People on each side have legitimate reasons to believe what they believe, be it God or secular humanism or whatever. How do people originally decide which camp they fall in? Intelligence? Life experience? Peer group? And once they have formed their opinions, why are they so reluctant to change them? Why are some so convinced that they are right that they are willing to use violence? Why do you believe what you believe?