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. 

The miseducation of rioting European students

So, there are student protests in Britain and in Continental Europe as well.  Apparently more protests are planned.  It is because of fee increases, which were triggered by the spiraling budget problems, except perhaps in cash-rich Germany.

I am not sure whether these protests are any sensible and rational behavior by students, and seems more like anarchic outpourings, like what we used to see at the annual meetings of the WTO or the IMF. 

I mean, these students should go after their parents and grandparents who gave themselves rich retirement and other benefits, which otherwise could have gone into subsidizing education. 

The citizens of many European countries have for decades had a social contract with their governments: The people pay absurd levels of taxes and the government takes care of them from cradle to grave. Nationalized healthcare, Ample pensions. Hefty labor rights. Early retirement. Generous unemployment benefits. But can this contract survive the euro crisis? The heavy obligations imposed on European government budgets by the welfare system were already set to become even heavier as Europe's population ages. That means fewer working age and taxpaying Europeans will have to support a greater number of retired old timers. Now here comes the euro crisis, in which the stability of the national finances of European states have come into focus. That's going to put extra pressure on European governments to keep their debt and deficits under control.

Heather Mac Donald writes:

What a boon to anarchy—having your self-righteous tantrums treated as important and newsworthy.  I don’t know how to break out of the dilemma that all such preening displays of lawlessness pose.  Ideally, they would not command any breathless coverage from reporters who come running, cameras flashing, at the slightest hint of revolt against the “establishment.”  Pretending that such theatrics are significant is especially galling when the protesters are ignorant students who don’t understand anything about the world and certainly not about work and commerce.  Yet at some level one does need to know  what is going on.  Perhaps photos of riots against common-sense government reforms or good-faith police actions could be balanced by photos of businessmen struggling to balance their books while drowning in a sclerotic, state-sodden economy.

The commentary at Spiked is, as always, an interesting contrarian read:

The excited student protestors first imagined that smashing an office window was a victory over ‘Tory scum’, and then did their victory dance in front of the banks of cameras (there apparently being as many photographers as rioters present) without trying to conceal their identities. More than a few of them will soon be facing up to the consequences of their naivety as prosecutors study the film for evidence. Cynics have observed that it is a sad reflection on the miseducation of the nation’s youth that some seem to think you riot first, then put the masks on afterwards. Don’t these young adults know how to dress themselves? They also failed geography, attacking the wrong building - because they assumed that the Conservative HQ was still in Millbank Tower - before they realised it had moved down the road.
But if anything, Her Majesty’s finest in the Metropolitan Police looked even more out of their depth. Police commanders more used to looking tough in a press conference than fighting street battles appeared never to have thought that there might be any unpleasantness at a demonstration involving thousands of pissed-off young people. Nor did it seem to have occurred to them that Prime Minister Cameron’s Conservative Party might just become a target for the anger.

Will someone please shut Krugman up

Leave it to the British (and Slate, here in the US) for bold and punny headlines.  In this case, a bold headline at the Daily Telegraph that says it all!  Really, I have borrowed the title for this post from there ...

Even before I get to the content, I could not understand why there is no question mark at the end of the headline :)

About the content itself, it is a squabble over the Lib-Con government's recent decision in favor of massive budget reductions.  Cameron is doubling down on a gamble that such reductions during this feeble recovery will actually do Britain good.  Krugman blasts that in his column and, hence, the response from Daily Telegraph, which is typically right of the political/economic center.

I suppose we will know in five years whose policy decisions turn out to be the correct ones.

As far as I am concerned, I yet again wonder if Krugman is diluting his value by pontificating a tad too much.  Even if Krugman is always correct, it might become like the nerdy guy in the class who always puts his hand up and provides the correct answer while the rest of the class begin to hate him for being so smart :) 

So, from a PR perspective, if not for the sake of content, perhaps Professor Krugman ought to chill for a while?

Quote (!) of the day: on Afghanistan

“Military reinforcements are only a small part of the response. To win the support of the Afghan population, you must bring economic development and prove you can not only change their lives, but improve them.”

The bizarre things about this statement is that it is from, of all people, the president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari.

Pakistan, which has done everything possible to make sure that the screwed-up American-led war would be even more screwed-up now offers this sage commentary?  WTF, eh!  Wait, he said this, too:

“The international community, of which Pakistan is a part, is losing the war against the Taliban because we have lost the battle for hearts and minds”

Gee, thanks!

What does the US government have to say about this?

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said U.S. President Barack Obama doesn’t share Zardari’s assessment of the course of the war.

“I don’t think the president would agree with President Zardari’s conclusion that the war is lost,” Gibbs told reporters at today’s regular White House briefing. “The actions and the efforts that the coalition, international forces and American forces have taken over the last several months have very much the hearts and minds of the Afghan people at the forefront.”

Great.  Will somebody in the White House please get Gibbs a cup of strong coffee so that he might wake up to the reality!!!

Meanwhile, the increasingly attractive government in the UK is out on an offensive against the Pakistani involvement in terrorism.  Which then triggered a whole lot of flag-waving against the UK, and Pakistanis demanded that their president cancel the planned visit to the UK.

The Pakistani government yesterday summoned the U.K.’s top envoy there after Cameron, visiting neighboring India, said Pakistan mustn’t be allowed to “look both ways” in the fight against terrorism. Television pictures showed an effigy of Cameron being burned by protesters in Karachi. 

  Cameron couldn't care less, it seems; good for him.
BTW, do you suppose the "West" is now regretting having forced the exit of Pervez Musharraf? 

Quote of the day: on politics

In opposition Mr Cameron vowed that, were he to become prime minister, politics and government would not be "some demented branch of the entertainment industry". So far, he has been as good as his word. This seems to be a government that speaks up when it has something to say, but when it hasn't, or when keeping quiet is more sensible, it doesn't. It is both quiet and dramatic at the same time.

Awesome, that the British prime minister actually described politics and government as "some demented branch of the entertainment industry" ... Good you, Mr. Cameron.
In that same posting, Bagehot of The Economist also notes that

Right-wing British newspapers are often every bit as shrill as the American media. Leaping on the chance to display some easy, knee-jerk patriotism, several urged David Cameron to stand up for “British Petroleum” and rebuke Barack Obama for demonising the company. Instead, the line has been that the government neither owns nor will disown BP—and quietly to point out that the firm has lots of American shareholders and employees too. Ministers saw Mr Obama’s rhetoric for what it was: the flailing of a politician in a desperate fix. By saying very little in public, they defused what threatened to become a juvenile spat.

I really, really hope that this Tory-LibDem coalition will work out ...