9 . 9 . 16
Immigration has emerged as a crucial political
issue throughout the West. On Sunday, Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrat party
was bested by Alternative for Germany in an election in Merkel’s own district.
It was the first German election in which the upstart nationalist party had won
more votes than Merkel’s venerable center-right party. There’s no doubt that
Merkel’s decision to open Germany to more than one million Muslim refugees
affected the outcome in a decisive way.
This outcome
follows a pattern. Many factors contributed to the Brexit vote in the United
Kingdom, but concerns about increased immigration were prominent among them. In
Austria, the Freedom Party, which is also opposed to immigration, is poised to
win control of the presidential palace. Hungary’s Fidesz, still another party
opposed to immigration, is in firm control of the government there. Parties
with similar profiles are gaining popularity in Switzerland, the Netherlands,
Denmark, and elsewhere.
Immigration has
played a key role in Donald Trump’s rise. His promise to build “a very
beautiful wall” along our border with Mexico catapulted him into the public eye
at the outset of the primary season.
The fact that
voters are agitated by significant influxes of newcomers ought not to surprise
us. What’s striking, on the contrary, is the inability or refusal of so many
politicians to address the growing concern.
Trump insists that
anyone residing in the United States illegally is subject to deportation. Many
commentators regard such comments as inflammatory. I am baffled by their
outrage. What, exactly, is meant by “illegal” if the lawbreaker is immune from
consequences? And I have another point of confusion: Why doesn’t the Clinton
campaign coopt this issue by offering a clear, but less drastic, plan for
enforcing existing immigration laws?
The very notion of
limiting immigration—building a wall—gets Trump described as “anti-immigrant.”
But isn’t job number one for our political leaders to protect the interests of
Americans, which surely entails restricting the number of people who can
immigrate? Again, why doesn’t Clinton box out Trump by juxtaposing his
extremist rhetoric with her own proposal for immigration reform? Clinton’s
proposal can be more generous, but nevertheless keyed to the interests of
native-born Americans.
Something strange
is going on here, something I don’t fully understand.
One factor, no
doubt, involves the putative benefits of immigration. Over the last two
decades, many have argued that only increased immigration will save Europe from
demographic decline and economic stagnation. This way of thinking, combined
with idealism about an inclusive, compassionate Germany, can convince the
political leadership there that admitting hundreds of thousands of refugees is
in the best interest of all Germans. Similar arguments about the contribution
immigration makes to economic growth in the United States comport nicely with
the mythology of our immigrant nation.
But I think the
reasons go deeper. A recent essay in Foreign
Affairs by Kishore Mahbubani
and Lawrence Summers, “The Fusion of Civilizations: The Case for Global
Optimism,” outlines a vision for a more globalized, peaceful, and prosperous
future—in which nations become less significant. Today’s emphasis on
multiculturalism and “diversity” participates in this vision of the future, one
in which differences are overcome and borders are irrelevant. It’s species of
utopianism, to be sure, but it has a powerful grip on the moral imagination of
the West.
In this view,
national interest is an impediment to progress. Concerns about identity are, by
definition, forms of ethnocentrism bordering on xenophobia. This is why the
upsurge of populist concern about immigration—which I take to be a synecdoche
for wide-ranging anxieties about the long-term significance of many social
changes—are so vigorously denounced by mainstream politicians, journalists, and
political commentators. It’s also why Hillary Clinton doesn’t isolate Trump by
employing a more moderate and sensible nationalist rhetoric. The same goes from
Angela Merkel. She is almost certain to persevere, in order to remain true to
what she believes will best serve the common good, not just of Germany, but of
the whole world.
G
lobalization has a unifying
dimension, which we rightly applaud. At the same time, though, globalization is
associated with economic and cultural changes that are dissolving inherited
forms of solidarity—the nation foremost, but local communities, as well, and
even the family. This dissolution encourages an atomistic individualism, which
in turn makes all of us more vulnerable to domination and control.
By my reading of
the signs of the times, the dangers of dissolved solidarity in the West are far
more dire than our present upsurges of ethnocentrism and nationalism. It is
atomized societies that are susceptible to demagogues—not societies that enjoy
strong social bonds and organic communal solidarity. Islamic extremism thrives
where traditional Muslim societies are disintegrated by the pressures of
globalization.
We need to renew
solidarity, rather than encourage the dissolving trends of globalization. This
means taking populist, anti-immigrant trends seriously, not denouncing them. It
also means thinking hard about how to strengthen what Abraham Lincoln called
our “mystic chords of memory.” We need a Christian nationalism, one that
encourages the unity of mankind while recognizing that human beings thrive best
as members of a particular people and as proud recipients of a distinctive
cultural inheritance.
R. R. Reno is editor of First Things.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário