The Anglo-German verdict on multiculturalism: it is dead!

For those fanatical Republicans who mindlessly, and out of sheer reflex, chant "American Exceptionalism" without ever pausing to think about what it means, America is certainly exceptional when it comes to its ability to throw together people of various colors, languages, religions, ... (editor: how about that Alabama governor and his ideas? Well, I didn't say we don't have nutcases!)

Over at Europe, things are not going well.  A couple of months ago, Germany's chancellor was brutal in her analysis:

Chancellor Angela Merkel has declared the death of multiculturalism in Germany, saying that it had "failed utterly" , in what has been interpreted as a startling shift from her previous views. The German leader said it had been an illusion to think that Germans and foreign workers could "live happily side by side".

An illusion!  Not here in America, Chancellor Merkel. 
(editor: but, I thought your faculty and administrative colleagues don't like you by their side?  Awshutup!)

Now, it is the British prime minister's turn; David Cameron said:

we have allowed the weakening of our collective identity.  Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream.  We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.  We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values

So, how do we read these?  The Week offers three takes on Cameron's statement:

Cameron is saying what we're all thinking: David Cameron should be applauded for being the first Western leader to mount a "reasonably coherent defense" of our values, says Gregory Buls at American Thinker. The only way peaceful Muslims will live in harmony with the West is if they understand "what makes Western societies such ideal places to live and raise families." That's a "matter of philosophy," not simply politics.

Cameron misunderstands what multiculturalism is all about: The Prime Minister's speech was driven by "nostalgia for a strong national collective identity," says Madeleine Bunting at The Guardian. But the beauty of multiculturalism is that it has reinvented our notion of "what it is to be British." That's a debate still being "subtly negotiated" in our streets, schools and hospitals. Cameron's rhetoric deprives that argument of hope, and "makes it instead something to fear."

Liberal Britain is afraid of being patriotic: Cameron wants, understandably, to promote a "unified British culture," says John Hinderaker at Powerline. But it's far from clear that "post-Christian" Britain has the "self-confidence to promote its own values." It's troubling that Cameron is pushing the "weak tea of contemporary liberalism." Will that really be enough to "counteract the attraction of radical Islam?" Don't count on it.

I was all set to point out one major flaw in Cameron's argument, but found that it has already been articulated by Frank Furedi:

when Cameron complains that, as a result of multicultural policies, mainstream British society has ceased to criticise and condemn the retrograde views and practices of minority communities, he should not point the finger of blame at tolerance – passive or otherwise.
Multiculturalism has nothing to do with true tolerance. Multiculturalism demands not tolerance but indulgent indifference. It relentlessly promotes the idea of ‘acceptance’ and discourages the questioning of other people’s beliefs and lifestyles. Its dominant value is non-judgmentalism. Yet judging, criticising and evaluating are all key attributes of any open-minded, democratic society worth its name. It is crucially important to rescue the concept of tolerance from its confused association with multiculturalism.

And, here is Furedi making an important point:

The reinterpretation of tolerance as non-judgmentalism or indifference is often seen as a positive thing; apparently, open-minded people are non-judgmental. In truth, the gesture of affirmation and acceptance can be seen as a way of avoiding making difficult moral choices, and a way of disengaging from the challenge of explaining which values are worth upholding. It is far easier to dispense with moral judgment entirely than to explain why a certain way of life is preferable to another way of life that should be tolerated, yes, but not embraced. That is probably why the indulgent indifference of multiculturalism has gained so much traction in recent decades: in Britain and many other European societies, multiculturalism has spared governments the hassle of having to spell out the principles underpinning their way of life.

It is this stupid approach to multiculturalism that has promoted a free for all approach when it comes to voicing any insane idea as equally legitimate.  Here in the US, this "non-judgmental" yardstick is the reason why creationism and intelligent design have so much of a status in the public sphere.  On the other hand, we ought to tolerate them while pointing out that their view are primitive.