Some attentive readers may remember
that I recently labeled what to do globally about refugees, displaced people,
asylum seekers, or just paupers from one dilapidated place moving to another in
search for a better life (many times not even for themselves, that know well
enough will be facing discrimination and outright scorn, but for their
children) one of the “great moral questions of our times” (GMQooT).
Unfortunately, in a following post about the shortcomings of democracy in
complex societies where desiderative reason has run its course (democracy's shortcomings)
I reached the conclusion that the most extended mode of aggregating the
political preferences of the people (representative democracy) was unlikely to
help reach a commonly agreed answer to such question. Although I didn’t explore
thoroughly the possible alternatives to current democratic practices, I found
this interesting article in The Grauniad that proposes a particularly
intriguing one (supplementing the current institutions by groups of citizens
drawn by lot, an apparently absurd idea I recently recommended my patient wife
as a potential alternative) Why elections are bad for democracy.
Some of the shortcomings of
democracy identified in my first post have already become a commonplace: the
Brexit referendum and the rise of Donald Trump in the USA are used by political
commentators of all stripes to showcase the dangers of unfettered popular rule,
and to illustrate how left to their own devices the uneducated masses are wont
to take catastrophically bad decisions that can leave all the participants
(which in their parlance means not only said uneducated masses, but especially
the cultured, well-informed, able decision makers that constitute the natural
milieu of the commentators themselves) worse off. Maybe just for sharpening my
contrarian skills today I want to take the opposite position to that I implied
back then, and argue that may be there is some legitimacy to the popular revolt
against elite opinion (what their self-appointed leaders tell them they should
think), and that by not paying attention to it such elites are accelerating the
descent of our already exhausted social arrangement (link) into chaos and
disintegration.
Let’s start, then, by reviewing the
commentariat’s opinion of the latest manifestations of popular folly, in order
to better understand its potential shortcomings. According to most politicians,
pundits, journalists, boffins, professors and political analysts what we see in
the “populist moment” is the reaction of those left behind by globalization
against the fine humans of different racial and cultural extraction that have
come to live amongst them. Such reaction is uniformly described with a clear
tinge of disapproval and derision, as only a racist, a bigot and a moron wouldn’t
appreciate the multiple benefits of diversity and how enriching it is to be
able to live in close proximity of those very different from yourself. That’s
the credo of “multiculturalism” in a nutshell: human diversity is good in
itself, and not just opposing it, but simply being less than enthusiastic about
it is an unpardonable sin, and must be the manifestation of a most retrograde
and almost psychopathic mind. Before we pass judgment on the truth of such
appreciation it may be good to separate how that diversity is experienced by
the well-to-do and by the average man in the street.
For the first, diversity translates
in more readily available tasty foods, cheaper home service (from cleaning
ladies to nannies) and the eventual social exchange with similarly well-to-do
businessmen (or, though much less frequently, businesswomen). In ethnic
restaurants the service is always good (I dare to say better than the local
one), cheap home service is a blessing and the businessmen from foreign
cultures are invariably well educated, have interesting life stories to share
and fascinating taste and habits. Within the upper strata of our world
diversity is not only an unmitigated good, but it is enjoyed in their own
terms. If the quarter they live in is too full of people too different from
themselves, they can always move to another place, more exclusive and more
culturally homogeneous. The world is full of “enclaves” for rich people to feel
exactly as exposed to the wide world as they feel comfortable and enjoyable to
do.
Things couldn’t be more different
for the second category (your average-income earning worker). For him diversity
translates in a certain amount of immigrants from faraway places who compete
with him for low-skilled work, thus depressing his salary. They also take their
children to the public school where he takes his, making the classes less
manageable (language barriers). They also use the public health service he
uses, making doctors less available for him. Finally, depending on how
successfully they integrate with the mainstream culture he belongs to, they
make the streets less safe, or public transportation a less appealing option.
And of course, none of those uncomfortable situations is remotely voluntary, as
the average worker in most developed countries would have great difficulties to
move to a more affluent place (another post should be devoted to why the world
over local governments seem bent on maintaining an artificial scarcity of land
to build on, keeping the real estate prices unjustifiable going mostly up in a
period of global price deflation) if he chose to. So, unsurprisingly, he tends
to be highly suspicious when the self-proclaimed “elites” harangue him about
his unacceptable bigotry and racism, and tell him he should be more
understanding of diversity and accept the living embodiments of diversity that
have come to dwell close in his midst. Not surprising, either, that he seems
willing to vote for the demagogue that pretends to stand up for him against
those evil immigrants (in the USA they include also the black population, that significant
number of whites still see as alien), against the judgment of the duplicitous,
hypocritical “elite” that preaches universal love and acceptance but afterwards
retreat to their expensive gated communities and leave the bulk of the
population with more and more squalid options.
So we may just agree that the
resistance to unfettered multiculturalism may have some logic (and may be even
some merit), and is not just the moral cesspool the majority of the opinion
makers pretend it to be. What is to be done, then, about the problem of the
refugees and the displaced for economic reasons? Is it then defensible to erect
as big and foreboding barriers as possible to keep them out, and to prosecute
and expel them if they somehow manage to sneak into our well-guarded islands of
stability and order? Nope, that is not the answer either. Let’s inject a
healthy dose of Kantianism back in the issue. What is it we would like others
to do if WE were the ones seeking asylum, or just a bit of opportunity as our
homeland were dirt poor and shoddily run? Not certainly to be thrown back.
Although we would understand our
chosen destination being picky about where we settle, and even imposing certain
controls on how many of our like were admitted (or the duration of our stay).
That is then what we could demand our leaders to do: accept as many immigrants
as possible given the economic conditions of the country, clearly understanding
who have come fleeing violence and strife, and have the intention to return,
and who have fled lack of opportunity and poverty and are thus willing to work
for a better life. Provide shelter and nourishment to the former, and a
remunerated job (or the chance to legally find one with the full protection of
current laws and statutes) to the latter. I can hear nativists (especially
European ones, with unemployment figures in some countries approaching 50% of
some segments of the population) yelling “we can not ensure a job for every
local, how can we be expected to provide them for newcomers!” and even for regarding
those asking only for temporary reprieve, “the whole country is full, we
neither can nor want to house them for free in our midst, putting an additional
strain in our public services!” Well, raise MY taxes then, as I would more
gladly pay to provide a modicum of dignity to a fleeing Syrian (or Zambian, or
Sudanese, or Myanmarian) than to pay for an additional first-class flight for an
already too pampered local politician, but as the politician is unlikely to
renounce his perks I understand more wealth would need to be extracted from me
and the likes of me.
But of course, the first order of
business should be to get the economy growing again, to actively pursue full
employment so there is work not only for the locals, but also for whoever else
may want to come and do it, as long as they conform to the law of the land.
What I see is that the answer to the Great Moral Question can not be given in
isolation, as the malaise that pushes so many working people to give the wrong
answer (the morally wrong answer, the answer that disregards the moral worth of
the huddled masses searching for a better life in our lands and has then to
justify why they are somehow less deserving of our concern and less entitled to
basic rights than we are) is caused mainly by the competition for scarce
resources we have made them enter with the foreigners, a competition that does
not affect those self-righteously trying to impose it on others. Give the whole
of the population enough resources (good job opportunities, enough choice about
where to live and who to surround themselves with, good schooling for their
children, and affordable healthcare) and you will see how little racist and
small-minded they turn out to be.
Easier said than done, I know, as
the two motors that have kept the European (and American, and Australian, and
Japanese, and Korean) economy growing, demographic growth and technological innovation,
are gone for good, and of the two alternative strategies that have been
postulated to substitute for them one has been tried and found wanting
(monetary loosening) and the other (expansion of public investment), although
not as much tried as Keynesians would like, is not likely to produce any result
at all (for reasons I explored here: man, are we screwed!).
What are we supposed to then? Abdicate our responsibilities, as so many between
us are doing? Pronounce it an unsolvable conundrum, a terrible mess, and just
throw our arms up in the air? No, never, as that only hastens the societal
collapse I already identified as the unavoidable consequence of our civilizational
model having reached its terminal phase. But the alternatives are hefty enough
as to merit a post of their own in the near future.
No comments:
Post a Comment