The article I wrote originally discussed a study by a Harvard professor who talked about why immigration could lead to a Republican majority rather than a Democratic majority. According to this professor, people get racist when they come into contact with people of another race. Thus, he believed that as more foreigners come to the US, whites will become more likely to vote as a block, which means they will vote Republican so they can oppose the new minorities. On the surface, this sounded like the typical “Republicans are racist” stuff. But it wasn’t. What was interesting about the Professor’s article was that he offered no solution even though his claims left only one possible conclusion: the left must turn against immigration if it wants socialism. This is what struck me as being the first attempt to lay the intellectual groundwork for an about face by the left on immigration.
So imagine my surprise to find an article in the Daily Mail (LINK), written by a Brit who described himself as a “left-leaning ‘Hampstead’ liberal,” which not only reaches the conclusion I told you was coming but says so in point plank language. Note this key conclusion found near the end of the article:
“The problem with mass immigration is that, without integration, it damages the internal solidarity of a country such as ours. And if values and lifestyles become more diverse, it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of the welfare state.”Bingo. This is exactly what I was talking about. According to this author, the left must realize that importing massive numbers of foreigners makes it impossible to convince the public to accept the welfare state. As this author put it, it damages the “legitimacy” of socialism. How does it do that? Well, the author says that people are only willing to give up a “third of our income into a common national pool” because we have a “belief that, despite different interests, we’re also part of the same team.” Bringing in immigrants destroys this belief. Hence, socialism becomes a hard sell.
What this guy suggested was that the left needs to admit they were wrong to let so many immigrants into Britain, and he suggested that it was time to stop immigration cold. He also absolved the left in advance for making this change. First, he did what the left always does and he denied that the left was at fault. He claims that their immigration problem wasn’t something the left actually did, it just sort of happened when no one was paying attention. This is the classic leftist denial. He also blessed the change to a racist immigration policy by pointing out that while certainly some Britons are dirty racists, it was not racist to oppose immigrants because this was about the team spirit, not about race. Yeah, try parsing that one. He even suggested that majority whites should be allowed to feel the same sense of identity that minority groups do and that the majority has rights over the minority.
No doubt, you recognize each of these thoughts because you’ve heard the left call people who said them “racists”. But don’t worry, these things will henceforth not be considered racist because the left is preparing to adopt them.
This is all really interesting. Here we are in on the ground floor of a massive shift in the left’s groupthink and we get to watch the intellectual gyrations even before the hive gets their marching orders. In the space of a couple weeks, we’ve now seen the real reason for such a shift offered by a Harvard professor (quoted in the liberal Washington Post) and suddenly in Britain we have a leftist advocate the identical theory, but dressing it up with all the justifications the hive will need to feel smug about adopting positions they once demonized. This is going to be fascinating to watch.
36 comments:
I disagree with you on this one. England's leftist party (who has been out of power since 2010, in no small part to their increasing the flow of immigrants to the country) has been anti-immigration for the better part of a year now.
When reading in the article below, bear in mind that Ed Milibrand current leader of the leader of the Labour Party.
--------------
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2162970/Ed-Miliband-Labour-leader-admits-talking-immigration-isnt-racist.html
In a major U-turn, Mr Miliband said the party became 'disconnected from the concerns of working people' during its 13 years in power.
Labour often tried to silence criticism of its immigration policy by suggesting it was inspired by racism while in office.
The announcement represents a major change of direction for the party after Gordon Brown branded voter Gillian Duffy a 'bigoted woman' for raising concerns about the impact of immigration during the 2010 election campaign.
--------------
So at the same time the Democrats and Labour went in different directions on the same issue.
Given that the Democrats campaigned and won on the issue twice in a row and the second time the Republicans (well, the one who won the nomination anyway) took an explicitly anti-immigration stance I don't expect the Democrats to change their stance.
Anthony, it sounds like you're disagreeing more about the timing, rather than the trend itself. Bottom line, the Left appears to be dropping the "opposing immigration is RACIST" line, if only internally at this point.
I think this is much clearer inside the Left's bastions of power. For example, you can find a lot of academics who are diehard, old-school Marxists and just hate the newer movements such as multiculturalism and environmentalism, and vice versa. There seems to be a reaction going on to the sheer relativism of previous decades, and I think the statements in the article are evidence of that.
Anthony, For as long as I can remember, the British left has led the American left on issues by about a year. So I do think it's coming.
And I think you can see evidence in it in the Washington Post article -- something they would have savaged five years ago but which they did not savage this time (and which mirrors what is now being said in the UK) and in the fact they've stalled on immigration reform.
T-Rav, I think you've put your finger on the key word "internally." In this British article, the guy makes the point that while it's not racist to oppose immigration and to be pro-white suddenly (i.e. we on the left can now hate immigrants and want them gone), "that doesn't mean there aren't racists" (i.e. the right is still racist no matter what they do).
I think this article and the one before it and the chatter that we are seeing is the left having decided to change their mind on immigration and now they are busy trying to create a "newthink" to let them become virulently racist and anti-immigrant without contradicting their most supposed belief that racism is bad. Basically, they are reclassifying hating non-whites as "not racist."
And I think there are clues that they don't intend this to give up their ability to scream racism either. As this guy notes in the article, despite his belief that it's not racist to believe the things they have always said are racist, "there are still racists out there."
That's what's to interesting here. This is like watching the hive-mind create a new contradictory belief and then rearrange the entire belief system to disseminate it.
Out of curiosity, what do the Marxists have against the multiculturalists?
"...what do the Marxists have against the multiculturalists?"
They are not part of the "collective". The more they let in, the smaller the cut for everyone.
Good stuff Andrew. It will be interesting to see if this happens. I have noticed that the Democrats seem to be working hard to make sure that immigration reform doesn't actually happen. I find that really interesting after all the screaming they've been doing.
Also, does Britain really have a problem with immigrants? It doesn't seem like it from here.
T-Rav and Andrew,
Given that their current position on immigration has been a winning issue for Democrats, I just don't think there is any reason to believe they will change their position/break their coalition.
Sometimes politicians borrow from other politician across the Atlantic (Bill Clinton's New Democrats inspired Tony Blair's New Labour) but domestic politics are very, very different in the US and the UK so it isn't consistent process.
Bev, That could be, but it's an interesting observation from T-Rav because most conservatives consider multiculturalism and Marxism to be the same thing... or at least fellow travelers.
Thanks Terry, It will be interesting to watch. I'm not sure how this will play out yet, but the trend is certainly interesting.
As for Britain, they have been letting in large numbers compared to their population -- nothing like we do though. What's interesting though is that they are freaking out mainly about Romanians and Poles -- people who wouldn't really raise an eye over here as they've been assimilated into "whites" in the US. It kind of makes me laugh at any Brits who think the US is racist.
Anthony, We'll see. You could be right, but I'm sensing this is a significant change. For one thing, this is a huge reversal in a "fundamental principle" of liberalism which is the kind of thing I've never seen them not adopt. In other words, this isn't a reform to tax policy or a minor detour on something like landmines or a divergence in energy policy -- this goes right to the core of the "values" they use to smear conservatives. I can't see the left being able to hold different positions on this in different countries.
Moreover, as I've pointed out before, the Democrats have used the promise of amnesty to win votes. They haven't actually used amnesty. And now that the Republicans are calling their bluff, they are backpedaling in a big way.
Moreover, I have seen a continuing drift to xenophobia from the left in the past 4-5 years. Look at the rise in their desires for protectionism, their anti-China-ism, their anti-Jewish sentiments, the openly racist rhetoric they use against conservative minorities. I am starting to see all of this as a trend. I could be wrong, but I think that is where they are headed.
The Harvard guy and the Brits have only awoken to something that intelligent observers have known for some time: that in order for even a modest implementation of socialism to work, the people in question need to be extremely homogenous. Such assertions have traditionally been derided as nonsense, a sort of wishful thinking on the part of conservatives unable to otherwise explain why socialism seems to work in places like Scandinavia.
Of course, the left can never admit it's been wrong or that anyone else has been right--which is why we have "climate change" instead of "global warming" now. They probably won't abandon "racism is bad, m'kay?" anytime soon, but it's certainly within their character to define it down and away from immigration.
Also, for as thoughtlessly oppositional as the GOP has become in the last four years, the Dems have come to rely on it. Now that the GOP is talking about amnesty or other citizenship possibilities--with a charismatic Hispanic at the helm, no less--the Dems seem a little off-guard. Plus, for all the ridicule the left has piled onto GOP introspection and "autopsies," it does seem to be winning points with the Latinos.
Polling (by Latino Decisions) seems to indicate that Latinos are not identity voters as both parties have pegged them being. Rather, they are a block of issues voters who share immigration reform as their #1 item. The same polling further seems to indicate that a reform-friendly GOP could split the Latino vote right down the middle. If other polls bear out those kinds of numbers, and if GOP politicians can move the ball on immigration, the best bet for the Dems might be finding a way to win back the racists.
tryanmax, I concur.
First, I don't think the left will end the "racism is evil" idea because it works for them because white liberals love it -- it lets them condescend to everyone around them from minorities to the unwashed masses. BUT they have already proven they can carve out their own racism as not being racist. Look how they accept liberals making racist attacks against minority conservatives or downplay liberals making racist statements ("clean, articulate negro") or how they shrug their shoulders at liberals telling racist jokes. This will be the same thing if I'm reading this right -- they will say there is nothing racist about defending "white culture" or working to keep out nonwhites... so long as it's liberals doing it. Conservatives doing the same thing will still be seen as racist.
On Latinos, I have seen the same thing. Latinos seem to be up for grabs, but not as a group. I think the only thing helping the Democrats has been that conservatives have worked hard to make themselves unacceptable to Hispanics, and then the Democrats could make all kinds of over-the-top promises, knowing they would never need to deliver. Now that the GOP has jumped on the immigration reform bandwagon, the Democrats seem to be struggling with how to handle it, with most remaining very silent as they sabotage the measure. I think that's very telling.
Sorry--that's what I get for getting caught up in my reading and forgetting about checking in.
To answer your question, Andrew, the real doctrinaire, economics-based Marxists object to these newer movements mainly because they make other identity groups their focus. That is, multiculturalists claim that race is the most important category, not class. To them, race is just a social construct and not "real"--what Marx would have called "superstructure"--and focusing on that is a distraction from things that are real, i.e. economic inequality and exploitation of the working class. It's certainly possible for a Marxist to see "whitey" as the source of lots of trouble, of course; but the true-blue, old-line academics don't like to talk race that much.
With environmentalism, the issue is that so often it comes across as just plain anti-human, and again just a distraction from important economic stuff. What's the point of saving the rainforest if the proletariat continues to suffer?
I'm not saying these are across-the-board divisions; none of them would ever consider voting for a Republican. But they do matter to these guys. One of the interesting ironies about the Marxist Left is that it can be more moral absolutist than most conservatives on certain issues.
And incidentally, I would agree that 95% of the time, multiculturalists and Marxists are absolutely fellow travelers. In a two-party system like ours, their divisions can't really separate out into different political loyalties as they do in Europe, where you do see multiple viable leftist parties (Greens, Social Democrats, etc.).
So what you're saying is that they don't really disagree, they're just upset that the others focus on their own pet peeve instead of the pet peeve they "should" be focused on. Makes sense.
To answer your question, Andrew, the real doctrinaire, economics-based Marxists object to these newer movements mainly because they make other identity groups their focus. That is, multiculturalists claim that race is the most important category, not class."
Well said, T-Rav. Blatant racism is rampant in many third world and even industrialized countres.
I would only add that their culture would also be used in a similar as well which would hurt the collective in some way.
For example, most Latinos are Catholic. And most are against abortion. That could become a major problem for dems down the road at some point.
BTW, excellent post, Andrew!
If the US left adopts this strategy it will be a slow process. But it does look like something many of the "elite" lefties are thinking about.
It's likely we will see them continue to test the waters on this issue with the possibility of some "studies" to back up these claims in a way that doesnt sound racist.
Thanks Ben! :)
I think you're right about the study. Assuming they want to make this change (and I sense that they do... though I can't prove it yet), they will need to create enough plausible reasons for opposing immigration so they can argue that their decision "has nothing to do with race." That means, as you say, studies.
So my guess is that we will soon see a full-court press on the negative effects of immigration on the poor, on the environment, on the countries they came from, and on the immigrants themselves. When the left's leaders think they have enough to create cover, they'll declare that it is no longer racist to want to keep all those non-whites out. At that point, like magic, you will see liberals everywhere shift their views dramatically overnight.
Well, yes, Andrew. Although I do think it's possible that these disagreements have prevented the Left from getting its act together on occasion. I could give you a whole list of Marxists who got expelled from the organization over when and how the proletariat revolution would come.
LOL! So they're basically cultists. And if you don't agree with all the dogma, then you are worse than the enemy?
Very true, Ben. And as we've mentioned before, the supposedly enlightened Europeans are often more out-and-out racist than any American you will run across.
Well, not worse than the enemy. Just the enemy's willing dupes. When the Communists in the '20s and '30s talked about "fascists," they weren't talking about Mussolini, they were talking about the Social Democrats. Heck, Mussolini was one of the most prominent Marxists until he got expelled, because he toed the party line on everything except Italy's involvement in WWI. So, yeah--cultists.
The left has always been good at killing their own.
Andrew,
I just don't see a unified left (or right for that matter) on an international level. Different countries have different histories and different political cultures. At the time when the Democrats (in opposition) vehemently opposed the Iraq War, the English left (in power) had Bush's back.
Power (both the actual holding of it and the prospect of having it) has a tremendous impact on thinking of parties. Call me a cynic, but I think power matters more to politicians than idealogy.
If it were in the Democrats' interest I don't doubt they would embrace anti-immigration sentiment, but I just don't see a percentage in it for them.
I can't wait for the study that explains why it is better for Mexicans to stay in Mexico. Should be entertaining.
tryanmax, I can give you the answer to that one already:
1. Mexico needs them and is suffering from a brain/labor drain which causes economic problems and spurs economic/politic chaos.
2. If they come here, they will be subject to the psychological effects of a racist society which seeks to keep them separate and thus they are dooming their children to be poor and stupid, whereas they could have become wealthy and happy in Mexico.
Trust me, this stuff is easy. It's all in the adjectives.
Anthony, It is about power it's becoming clear to the left that immigration did not bring them power, it brought them problems.
And let me add on other thing... it's really interesting that this change of heart seems to be taking place right after people started to realize that there will be no Hispanic takeover of the us. In other words, it is now clear that their dream that Hispanics would ride them to power will fail.
Combine this with the "white gap" growing increasingly Republicans and the Republicans now actively trying to lower the Hispanic gap, and the writing is on the wall for the Democrats that they need to change their strategy.
As for being lockstep, the British left did the same thing ours did. They supported Bush at first and then turned on him (and Blair) almost before the shooting stopped. Don't forget that most of our Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq as well before they turned against it midstream.
I think the international left is much more lockstep than you give them credit for.
tryanmax,
I agree that having a monoculture probably makes social welfare easy, but the ship on the US having a monoculture sailed a long time ago. I don't think the Democrats are going to sacrifice power to try to make an impossible ideal happen.
I agree that Rubio has wrongfooted the Democrats, though I suspect they are dragging their feet in the hope that some sort of grassroots rebellion will force Rubio to walk away from the deal, thus letting the Democrats continue to own the issue. Either that or some high profile conservative becomes the voice of the opposition and thus becomes the guy everyone thinks of when they think of the issue (most Republicans in elected office voted for the CRA, but most people remember not that, but Goldwater's opposition).
I don't think there is a big racist block in America. There are racists out there (not hard to find them on the internet) but so few of them that the costs outweigh any potential gains. Bear in mind that you lose not only minorities, but people who are opposed to racism, which at this point in history is the vast majority of America, especially younger America.
But Anthony, that's the point. They aren't going to say, "we must be racists," they are going to redefine racism to exclude their new views about keep out non-whites.
And if you think that won't work, look at the way the left has already create a dual track on racism. For me to tell a joke about blacks or to use the n-word even in jest is racist. For Biden to do it is just Joe.
Or look at more subtle ways around it. For me to suggest that blacks are incapable of success on their own and need help would be called racist. For a Democrat to suggest the same thing but phrase it as "racists have kept blacks from succeeding and we need affirmative action" is considered anti-racist even though it's very premise is racist and its solution is based on group/race rights rather than individual rights (i.e. it's racist by definition). The truth is that if you phrase something right, you can turn a virulently anti-XXX position into a pro-XXX position, especially when you have the MSM covering your back and praising you for being pro-XXX.
The risk of a change is minimal if they lay the proper groundwork.
Andrew,
I don't see that as a dual track. For most people (of all colors and political persuasions), racially or sexually charged attacks are okay (within boundaries) so long as the target is on the other side.
Many conservatives call Obama the Kenyan, the Muslim, compare him to an African chief, claim his liberalism is a result of his Kenyan absentee father rather than the fact he is a guy from a liberal family who is a member of a liberal community who went to a famously liberal college, what have you. Many habitually refer to blacks who aren't conservative as slaves on a plantation.
I see that more as a sign of how seriously people take their politics than racism or sexism. Minority politicians on the wrong (aka the other) side of issues catch hell but those who embrace the right positions tend to be embraced (even if they lack leadership potential, they can be useful symbols).
I agree about the importance of phrasing, but phrasing only gets one so far. The bottom line matters quite a bit.
Anthony, The thing is that I don't see a negative for them in this change. The public hates illegal immigration -- even the left. Nobody wants their culture changed. People love having more restaurants and phony little cultural events, but having a big chunk of Somalia suddenly show up in your neighborhood is not something people like on the left, right or center. So a change will be popular.
Moreover, the only potential harm I see to the Democrats in changing their position would be being considered "racist" for now proposing things they had called racist themselves. BUT, as we've seen time and again, they are very good at making those kinds of changes without being seen as racists because they just disclaim racist intent. And since they've basically defined racism as "when conservatives mention race," they can get away with this. So suddenly saying, "we need to stop immigration because it hurts immigrants, hurts the poor, hurts the environment, hurts the countries they came from, and hurts our unity" would not be seen as racist, and thus would not hurt them.
Read that guy's article from Britain and I think you'll see exactly how liberals will flip in this country:
1. I'm not racist. I love it when brown people open ethnic restaurants. They're so gosh darn cute... just like in the movies.
2. I see real problems with the current system and we need to stop immigration to protect our sense of culture and unity.
3. These may be things racists said, but they only said them because they were racists and hated foreigners. I don't hate foreigners and am not racist, thus my saying them is different.
Andrew,
The public hates illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrants according to several studies I've seen including a recent Pew study (link at the bottom0. A majority of all groups (even Hispanics and Asians) favor tighter border controls, but a majority of all groups favor giving permanent legal status or citizenship to those who are here.
Given public sentiment, I fully agree with your point that the Democrats will probably clamp down on immigration, but I don't think that that the Democrats are going to break their coalition by flirting with racism.
If (probably when) a clampdown happens, they will paint the clampdown in law and order terms (which is how Obama explained the fact that he deported more Hispanics than any 1st term president despite the fact that fewer Hispanics are coming to the US than in the past) not racial ones.
http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/28/most-say-illegal-immigrants-should-be-allowed-to-stay-but-citizenship-is-more-divisive/
We can all play "my poll is bigger than your poll" until the end of time (pun intended). But here are the things you can count on:
1) Dems/liberals will flirt with anything until they decide which one will get them their way.
2) Xenophobia exists even while it is suppressed--like sex in the Victorian era. You can always play to it in one way or another.
3) Everyone agrees (consensus) to the things which promote their worse natures in the name of championing their best.
Anthony, I think you are right that the Democrats won't use racial tones because they want to keep the idea that they aren't racist. They will instead use other arguments and they will make arguments that they would scream racism at tone, but will define them as "not racist." It will be the same way they can tell racist jokes today but then claim they aren't racist just by saying they aren't racist.
Or for another example, look at the way they flirt with antisemitism today and that is a model for how they will handle this. They don't say "Jews" but they instead say "Israel" or "rich bankers."
tryanmax, I think the key is No. 1. The Democrats will flirt with anything that helps them. If they do decide that immigration is bad for them, as it seems they are deciding, they will change their tune. They'll do it in their normal deceptive way, but they will do it.
Post a Comment