In the charged atmosphere in US and other countries’ politics at the moment, immigration, legal and illegal, is a hot topic, to put it mildly. As regulars here know, a key point is that immigration/emigration cannot be divorced from issues such as whether the chosen destination of a migrant has a welfare state, or not. It is worth, with all that in mind, to remind ourselves that on the whole, migrants tend to be highly motivated people, not the malevolent “snakes” that Donald Trump (whose ancestors were immigrants, and we don’t know how fully documented they might have been) might put it. Here is an item from the Wall Street Journal:
A new non-partisan study on entrepreneurship gives some credence to the tech industry’s stance that American innovation benefits from robust immigration.
The study from the National Foundation for American Policy, a non-partisan think tank based in Arlington, Va., shows that immigrants started more than half of the current crop of U.S.-based startups valued at $1 billion or more.
These 44 companies, the study says, are collectively valued at $168 billion and create an average of roughly 760 jobs per company in the U.S. The study also estimates that immigrants make up over 70% of key management or product development positions at these companies.
The foundation examined 87 U.S. companies valued at $1 billion or more as of Jan. 1, as tracked by the Journal’s Billion Dollar Startup Club. The authors of the study used public data and information from the companies to create biographies of the founders.
Of course, as I anticipate some commenters might say, these immigrants are, one assumes, legals, and they haven’t overstayed their visa terms or they did not jump over any fence. But for what it is worth, these achievements would be no less notable even if they had not been entirely legit as stands under existing law.
There is a lot of fear in Western politics at the moment, and it is all too easy to forget the many positives out there. Remember, politicians who want to expand the State usually thrive when people are scared, or made more scared.
Jonathan notes that “immigration/emigration cannot be divorced from … whether the chosen destination … has a welfare state” and then says that “on the whole, migrants tend to be highly motivated people”. His first point prevents his second’s being a general truth. If the chosen destination has no welfare state and no multiculturalist ruling agenda then migrants do indeed tend to be motivated and on average a benefit to their hosts. When there are both, the majority of migrants are very capable of being anything but beneficial to the host. It is all a matter of incentives at every point in the process: incentives to come and/or to send others, incentives to adapt after arriving, etc.
A liberal democracy is the best society we have created so dar for the individual
It is underpinned by:
Equality before the law
Freedom of speech
Freedom of conscience
Unassimilated and unassimilable migrants do not recognise these values and actively undermine them. There should be no place for them.
“these achievements would be no less notable even if they had not been entirely legit as stands under existing law.”
Sorry, but that comment makes absolutely no sense; it’s a complete red herring pretending to be some sort of argument. No one questions that legal immigrants (who, I have zero doubt, make up approximately 100% of the population described in the Journal article) are motivated people generally bringing valuable skills, and who because they followed the rules have demonstrated that they are law-abiding and respectful of the society into which they are emigrating. Such people are entirely welcomed here. By contrast, illegal aliens* have demonstrated their distain for the laws of the host country. They are, by definition, criminals, and if some of them perform useful work once here that doesn’t excuse their actions. And it certainly doesn’t justify providing welfare or other social services to such persons, or giving them some sort of advantage when seeking legal status. You don’t reward line-jumping.
* I absolutely refuse to use the PC term “illegal immigrants”, let alone the wholly perverse “undocumented immigrants.”
Many unanswered questions here. Is the harm done by millions of invaders overbalanced by the good that might be done by a few of them who manage to prosper without the help of money taken at the point of a gun from the natives of a land? How about the harm caused by the spectacle of millions of invaders successfully breaking the law, with the assistance of millions of wrongheaded natives? What principle of freedom mandates overriding democratically-instituted laws?
Innovative people going to America starting companies, one of things that makes America great.
In the vast majority of Western democracies the extent to which a political party is pro-state funded welfare is correlated with the degree to which said political party is pro-immigration (legal or illegal). There are many reasons for this (is coincidence not God winking?) but the pattern is absolutely clear: interests in favor of statism tend to be more supportive of immigration, especially immigration from the third world.
Libertarians/classical liberals often point out that the welfare state – not less stringent immigration law – is what attracts less desirable immigrants. Even if they were correct on this point (and that is debatable) the reality is that the prime incentive of democratic governance, which is to ever-enlarge the pool of people reliant on its services, always dwarfs the impact of libertarian dogma in shaping public policy in reality. This is why while arguing in favor of a smaller welfare state and less stringent immigration laws may be consistent with libertarian principles, the simple fact is that more immigration usually means a bigger welfare state in modern Western democracies (until the whole state apparatus collapses of course).
Ljh says:
The values:
The legal system no longer provides “equality before the law.”
Surveys of the U S population indicate that there are growing views favoring constraints on “some types of speech.” A huge segment (40%) of the 18-34 population oppose freedom of speech that is “offensive” to some minorities.
Expressions of conscience are now legally constrained (Christmas displays, Biblical tablets).
There have been no wide-scale exits.
Ljh,
The principle of “equality before the law” is fine and dandy in theory, but in reality individual Americans tend to garner as much justice as they can afford in today’s legal system. One example: ask Tea Party groups that were routinely harassed by the IRS about “equality before the law”.
“Freedom of speech” does not exist on most college campuses and in mostly all workplaces – and these restrictions are not generally attributable to private contracts in a manner libertarians might applaud/accept. Freedom of speech outside of the workplace and college campuses is under increasing legal assault. Younger Americans are increasingly open to restricting speech that offends minorities.
But let us look past the law and observe how America operates in reality: the truth is that democratic societies tend to be less open-minded, more dogmatic, and more uniform in their beliefs than societies governed by less “liberal” principles. One example: less than 50 years ago homosexuality was classified by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder. Today it is absurd to even suggest the possibility! Social ostracism is a powerful incentive and one that obviates the need for written law in most domains of forming and voicing opinion.
“Freedom of conscience” – even the GOP contender for the White House John Kasich thinks that religious Christians should be compelled to bake cakes for gay weddings against their conscience. Which is to say nothing of the Democrats!
Ljh,
Notwithstanding the above dismemberment of the concept of these “values” it is true that most immigrants to the USA today are less supportive of these ideals than are American-born citizens and that their entry into the United States will further accelerate the erosion of these principles both legally and culturally. As Ann Coulter has been known to point out, the fear-mongering about legal immigration in the early 20th century was entirely justified and, in fact, stemmed from expectations that were born out in reality.
One example: the FDR regime, which transformed America’s economic policy and greatly enlarged the welfare state, enjoyed immense support from recent immigrant families, especially those from Southern and Eastern Europe. These were generally hard working and legal immigrants, but their perspectives on politics helped to change America into a far less free nation with a much larger federal government. This result is precisely what many Americans who wanted less immigration (especially of Catholics and Jews) in the first few decades of the 20th century feared.
Fear is often entirely justified and – as the American Protestants resistant to immigration in the first few decades of the 1900s found out – sometimes insufficiently vehement to achieve entirely worthwhile goals.
Ive seen a few of these chaps in action in Australia via my Vietnamese step-mums extended family group.
The key to most of the success Ive seen has been a healthy desire not to let government regulations or bullshit get in their way, and hard work.
One chap has about 90 nail salons spread around Australia, he set up a shop in my old home town who sent a council hump-knuckle to inspect the place and he declared it “didnt conform”.
While my father and myself considered the options (appeals etc) they just went and opened on the day it was going to open anyway, and have been operating for the last 3 months making about (if i worked it out right) somewhere around $10,000 a week, 1/2 of which is profit.
The market gardeners (which is where a lot of ex-Vietnam war refugees ended up) turn over millions a year, and sell as much as they can for cash.
A lot of most countries natural go-getters have been “complied” to death, it seems only by ignoring a lot of the jobsworths regulations can you get ahead.
There is a downside, a lot of the Afghani boys I saw passing through the detention center in Oz, who I thought would do well have instead gone into drugs and crime.
Refugee intake is an expense in general, not a plus to an economy, if its done then it is done out of compassion, not by using rubbery figures.
It can only be construed as a deliberate lie when you hear a small minority of talented and highly educated migrant entrepreneurs being used as an excuse for flooding Europe with low IQ 18-30 yobbos many of whom can’t read or write their own language never mind European ones. These rapey pukes will NEVER be anything but a source of crime , terrorism, endless expense and excuse for more state power and oppression (Snooper’s Charter anyone?) amounting to a vast worsening of the quality of life in the West.
Yes America was boosted by migrants–who were given nothing except freedom and damn well had to learn English and follow American social norms. And even had their names changed.
Shlomo Maistre
There is major immigration into Russia, which you would not call a democratic country, or would you?
Why Russia Still Attracts Immigrants
the truth is that democratic societies tend to be less open-minded, more dogmatic, and more uniform in their beliefs than societies governed by less “liberal” principles.
I’m curious about your example of undemocratic society with bigger freedom of speech than modern US.
And not in the old Soviet joke sense
(American and Russian talk about freedom of speech. American says: In America, i can say that President Reagan is swine and nothing happens to me.
Pshaw, says Russian. In the USSR, i can too say that President Reagan is swine. )
for what it is worth, these achievements would be no less notable even if they had not been entirely legit as stands under existing law.
Not worth very much, IMHO. These successes were achieved DESPITE the immigration restrictions that you disapprove of, so the restrictions were not, in fact, a barrier to the success identified. The relevant question is whether other potential successes have been stymied by these restrictions. We would hunt about, for example, for illegal immigrants who are running small gardening businesses but who have the talent, drive and determination to found computer empires. Or people who, scared by US barriers, veered off and founded successful computer empires elsewhere (though in such cases it’s not obvious that much damage has been done to the world in general.)
I submit, m’lud, that the sort of people with the intelligence, drive, English skills and entrepreneurial flair to build (or contribute to the building of) fine new growth businesses in the US do not find it difficult to get US Visas under current rules. And I submit, m’lud, that the sort of people who currently immigrate into the US illegally generally lack these skills (esp English) and would not be able to do the sort of things that the legals can do. Which is not to say that some of them are incapable of forming and running one man, two man, three man gardening businesses.
In short, no sane person opposes ALL immigration. Sane people favour DISCRIMINATION in immigration, since some immigrants add, and some subtract, from the welfare of the existing inhabitants. Of course some might say that one cannot predict with any reasonable statistical confidence what sort of immigrant is likely to add, and what sort of immigrant is likely to subtract. To which, I would reply, PHOOEY !
Back in the 1970s Giscard D’Estaing (remember him?) talked about a threshold of tolerance for immigration.
It seems as if the threshold is much higher than was expected at the time.
Whilst we can balance up the hard working migrants between those who are willing to assimilate and contribute, and the work shy freeloaders who head straight for the welfare office, I think Trump’s “snake” attack addresses the alternative view of migrates; those who are willing to assimilate and those who seek to pervert American society for their own ideology. Both are actually “highly motivated”, just in different directions.
This is another failure of armchair libertarians, not whether welfare exists and how that balances with freedom of movement, but if liberal democracy exists and how that balances with freedom of ideas, just what do you do when a large bunch of people arrive asking for the fundamental basics of law to be changed that would undoubtedly make the host society rather less liberal and democratic?
Arguing about the economic benefits is moot if the main threat is the wholesale destabilization of liberty, something I often hear is a concern when a western government decides to enact some anti-privacy law, but is in short consideration when dealing with the religious and political views of the import of potential foreign voters.
Laird: “No one questions that legal immigrants (who, I have zero doubt, make up approximately 100% of the population described in the Journal article) are motivated people generally bringing valuable skills, and who because they followed the rules have demonstrated that they are law-abiding and respectful of the society into which they are emigrating. Such people are entirely welcomed here. By contrast, illegal aliens* have demonstrated their distain for the laws of the host country. They are, by definition, criminals, and if some of them perform useful work once here that doesn’t excuse their actions. And it certainly doesn’t justify providing welfare or other social services to such persons, or giving them some sort of advantage when seeking legal status. You don’t reward line-jumping.”
Quite a lot of people in different nations do question legal immigration, saying that foreigners are taking “our” jobs, etc. (Consider the kind of rhetoric deployed by Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader, during the last UK general election.) Those who enter the UK from the rest of the EU as a result of the open-borders policies of the EU are often attacked on such economically illiterate grounds. The legality of it doesn’t prevent attacks on such movement. Yes of course, illegal immigrants are defying the law – the most common example of which in the US is of those who outstay their visa permit periods, rather than crossing a border. I also agree about the welfare point which is exactly why I made it in the top of the piece.
Even so, I don’t row back from the point that a person who is moving to another country and who uproots from a home country is on the whole taking the sort of risk that usually goes with being enterprising, rather than desiring to murder, rape and rob. Part of the problem today is that there is now an enormous backlog of cases to be processed, which is why persons trying to get their visas extended and permits sorted out fall into trouble. It is not that they are all cheating the system.
One commenter refers to FDR and his stance on immigration. I am not familiar with the details, but the fact that some immigrant groups might have disproportionately supported his policies does not not of itself prove that immigration from certain places is bad. Italian Americans and those form Eastern Europe have become some of the most successful economic groups in the US, as have Asians, even though in the latter case, Japanese Americans were treated badly by the FDR administration during WW2 through internment. At one point certain groups might have held very different cultural and political views. Not so long ago, for example, it was assumed here in the UK that Muslims would be natural Tories on account of their “strong family values” (to coin a phrase), now it appears they are more likely to be further to the Left, for various reasons.
SM, RRS, that the unassimilable are assisted by problems arising within the state is no reason to shrug one’s shoulders, they are values worth fighting for however imperfect their implementation. Angela Merkel has thrown whole groups under the bus, who have benefited from the principle of equality before the law to claim the public space. Gay pride, Slut walks, will be nostalgically remembered as the hostile invaders enlarge their beachhead in Europe.
Invader=colonist
As JP’s last comment shows and as is common with such issues, too many generalized assumptions are being made when immigration is discussed. We are talking about lots of people, both the immigrants and the citizens who are asked to accept them in their home countries. Not to mention that, since government policies are what is being discussed, we are talking about different countries and different periods, with said policies varying along those geographical and chronological lines. The Libertarian “dogma” makes an attempt to make at least one distinction about the home-turf part of that rather complex equation, and that is the presence or lack of “welfare” state. That distinction is certainly important, but I’m afraid that it leaves out several other variables, and not all of them are on the home-turf side of it – far from it. IOW, ‘welfare state – yes or no’ is not the only variable that will determine what sort of immigrant will be willing to arrive and stay, and how they will adapt in the new country, if at all. Incentives do matter, very much so – but to think that the only possible incentive/disincentive for a prospective immigrant is the “welfare” issue in their destination country seems to be rather simplistic, to say the least.
To put that in yet simpler terms, bad people will come to your country, even if you don’t offer them free stuff. Yes, if you have strong rule of law that is tough on bad people (such as those willing to steal, rape and murder, for whatever reasons), you may deal with these bad people effectively, just as you deal with your native criminals. However, the big question seems to be: how many bad people are likely to arrive, and from where? And this is where the country of origin and its prevailing culture comes in. Take the Italian immigration of the 20th century, which Jonathan brought up above: yes, some of them brought the Mafia with them, which made for some dead bodies (and some awesome movies). But were the Mafia types anything like a majority of the entire Italian immigrant population over the century? Was there something inherently criminal in the Italian culture/religion? Was the Italian contingent really more significant among the criminal element in the US, who based their living (and dying) on the misguided anti-booze/drugs policies that the US governments have been so enamored with for so many decades? More broadly, has there ever been a significant sector of immigrants to the US or Europe, identifiable through a common geographical origin or common culture/religion, who had the (apparent) propensity to blow shit up just for the heck of it, to rape women because they show too much skin, or to shoot at people who believe in the wrong god?
“A new non-partisan study” begs the question about who exactly thinks the study is non-partisan?
One assumes too the “think tank” (which is named as non-partisan to go with their non-partisan study) is paid for their thinking. So… who is paying them and why?
That’s 22 fine entrepreneurs versus how many corpses courtesy of invaders? 6 by one man in one incident in Chicago last week.
I don’t have a problem admitting anyone with a medical degree, engineering qualification, or a million dollars. I DO have a problem with the fact that if you can physically get past our very porous border you’re here and our problem.
Not that anything at all will be done about it, it’s like the Indians griping about these crazy white people just showing up.
We’re the cave bears-
http://img.ifcdn.com/images/a1e274d64d537d1fc8de24fbb73ddc33d34d44f4c98e3da872a0de8afde68b23_1.jpg
Alisa and JP are right.
Alisa first. The UK (esp places like Glasgow) also received a lot of Italian immigrants in the early C20th. A lot set-up restaurants and ice-cream businesses and such. They contributed to the gayness of the nation. As Alisa states the Mafia etc are a product of insane laws. And a fair chunk of US organised crime wasn’t Italians anyway. Joe Kennedy anyone? And of course the Kennedys are US quasi-royals. These are not unrelated facts. The likes of Joe Kennedy came to the conclusion that political power stems from the barrel of a gun arguably before Mao did.
JP is right that (and I also don’t think welfare) is the draw that lots think. Might I add something? I suspect a lot of Muslims coming to the EU/UK are doing it because it is a safer place to be a Muslim than the lands of ISIS et al where you are quite likely to meet a grizzly end for being the wrong sort of Muslim.
I have to admit to a level of shock at the xenophobia in the comments. People (people who never go to church except for a wedding or funeral) routinely bemoan and weep and wail the fact that the CofE is dying on it’s arse. Some of them (a lot of them) also bemoan a mosque being built or Poles coming here and going to mass.
Why is this bad? It is bad but not for the reasons stated so often by Daily Mail gobshites. It is not that the Catholics or Muslims are doing wrong it is that the CofE has lost the plot by committing the ultimat slow suicide of a religious organisation – giving-up believing in God. If the vicar (and I have known a few to whom this applies) doesn’t believe in God then I am not getting out of bed on Sunday.
I mean I’m agnostic anyway but…
Finally, the coming over here taking all the jobs is a similarly passive victimology. It is also a prime example of the “fixed wealth fallacy”. We are not being invaded. We have become passive.
My experience in Denmark has made me very much aware of the positive contributions that immigrants can make, thanks to my landlord hiring Lithuanians in desperation. He had previously hired Danes to do various work on the house; i’ll just discuss painting the windows. The Danes sloshed paint on the windows and then closed them as soon as they had finished painting. (I re-opened them as soon as they left.) The Lithuanians took the windows down to the garden, stripped the old paint, repainted them, and 2 hours later would not bring them up again because the paint was not completely dry.
Needless to say, however, the present immigration crisis in Europe is not about Lithuanians. As for the US: paradoxically, most of their problems would go away if they took continental Europe as a model. By that i mean: make it hard to get welfare benefits, emergency medical care, and education for your children, without paying taxes and social security contributions; and make it impossible to vote once, let alone several times, without being a citizen. But that ain’t gonna happen, which is why you get Trump.
Having said all that, let me repeat once again, with new words, the main reason why i am against immigration. I said it already when Perry Metzger brought up the issue. Consciously or not, when the ruling class let immigrants in, they are waving a red flag at a bull. When the bull starts pawing the ground, the ruling class point fingers and scream “RACISM!!! vote for us to protect you from racists!!!”. So letting in immigrants means increasing the power of the ruling class.
In the case of Tony Blair, either he was consciously adopting this strategy, or he is much more stupid than he looks.
For a hundred years the United States had a weakly defended (largely open) border with Latin America – but there was no real mass immigration from Latin America.
Then, in the 1960s, the “Great Society” Welfare State (actually really starting with “Food Stamps” in 1961) got under way – as did the “anti discrimination” laws (meaning that from 1964 private business enterprises have been, to a great extent, under government control – with the government telling people who they must employ and must trade with).
In housing “anti discrimination” (that principle of the late Roman Empire that “open to the public” means a business is “public” in the sense of being part of the state) had been applied by the courts since the 1950s.
In 1982 the United States Supreme Court decided (against Texas) that “free” education (and so on)( had to be given to illegal immigrants (the word “illegal” did not register with the legal mind – and the concept that there is no such thing as a “right” to the money of other people did not register either), this was backed up by later judgements in Californian courts – overturning the votes of the citizens (turning “democracy” into a farce).
Congress in the 1980s (stimulated by FAKE stories of mothers being kicked out of hospitals in the middle of giving birth) decided that free medical care must be provided to any person who turned up at a hospital “ER”.
Thus turning every American hospital, with an Emergency Room, into a arm of the government – and open to everyone on the planet.
President Reagan signed this madness into law – and also (in the “worst mistake I ever made”) signed “amnesty” for millions of illegal immigrants. Thus enabling them to vote (although some voted illegally already)and subvert such areas as California.
The Donald Trump campaign?
All sound and fury – signifying nothing.
Mr Trump supported amnesty for tens of millions of illegals – only last June (his supporters are fools – he will betray them).
Will the United States become an extension of “Social Justice” Latin America?
With landowners and “capitalists” being robbed and murdered as they were in Mexico after the Revolution of 1910?
Possibly – as the influx of illegals (and their children) are “Social Justice” people – who detest traditional American principles (as Pope Francis also does – nice man though he is).
And, of course, the illegals (waving their Latin American flags) believe that the evil Americans “stole the land” in the wars of 1836 and 1848 anyway.
How this applies to places such as Rhode Island or ……. (never part of Latin America) the illegals do not explain.
But then “African Americans” (or rather African American “activists”) never explain how past slavery justifies taking areas of the United States that never-had-slavery.
People of any “race” can become Americans – but only if they want to become Americans.
And the African American and hispanic ACTIVISTS (who set the agenda for these communities – and have done since the 1960s) do not WANT to be Americans – indeed they fanatically hate and despise the United States (especially the Bill of Rights – the principles of limited government, rather than “Social Justice”).
People of any “race” can be Americans – but only if they want to be.
And they do not want to be.
No more than the Huns wanted to Romans in the 5th century.
Of the Angles and Saxons who were invited in to Britain (and they were invited in) wanted to be Citizens.
“But the Goths really did want to be Romans” – perhaps, but not if meant not being allowed to plunder the population. Social Justice (looting) was more important.
And the American population?
Their spirit is broken – look at the declining life span (it did not decline even in the 1930s – it is declining now) and the rise of heroin and so on – even in New Hampshire.
They clutch at Donald Trump as a dying man clutches at a snake – and he is a snake.
The education system and media (especially the entertainment media) teach “white guilt” – Americans are taught that they are monsters who have nothing but evil.
Some accept what they are taught – and become “Social Justice Warriors” pledged to exterminate “capitalist” America.
Much like Romans who joined the Hums – and some did (helping to burn their own cities – and slaughter their own people)
Other Americas reject the lies of the education system and the media (Hollywood and so) – but they have no true knowledge to put in the place of the lies of the schools and the universities.
So they are desperate – but also doomed.
If there is hope it will be in people who (somehow) find old American principles – overlooked in decaying old books and so on.
And (yet again) such people cam be of any “race”.
After all it was the “savage Irish” (never part of the Empire) who preserved classical learning in the West.
Darin,
What’s your argument here? I genuinely don’t understand what your point is.
Frederick the Great’s Prussia is one example.
In modern Western democracies there is a palpable prejudice against opinions that are old. If the opinion was not originally voiced in the mainstream in the past few decades then it has almost certainly long since been discarded to the dustbin of “illegitimate” viewpoints not thought to be worthy of consideration in our “enlightened” country. Try taking the the 1950 mainstream opinion on the heritability of IQ, homosexuality, or feminism on CNN today – see how far it takes you. Of course, you’d never get on camera in the first place. Was the vast majority of the American public wrong on these matters in 1950? The point though is that even back then opinion was highly uniform.
The uniformity of public opinion across American society is simply staggering. It’s striking how NARROW Overton’s Window really is.
Democracy – because it is slow motion war and inherently unstable – requires greater uniformity of opinion to remain viable, which is why the ruling class helps shape as narrow a public discussion on sensitive matters as possible in the USA.
Of course people of any race can be Americans.
But where people come from matters because their assumptions and thoughts will impact how they vote.
Immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe to the USA from the 1890s through 1920s delivered a major constituency to those who favored dramatically enlarging the federal government. Why? Because these were mostly Catholics and Jews with vastly different perspectives on politics and governance than most of the American-born citizens at the time.
Fear of immigration is often entirely justified and sometimes insufficiently vehement to achieve entirely worthwhile goals. FDR won. Limited government lost.
@Laird,
Are these laws just? Are they enforceable? The Open Borders crowd doesn’t think so.
As JP said, as because they broke the law doesn’t mean they are unworthy (in some people’s eyes).
I think all this boils down to: Does a nation of people have the right to decide who gets to join them? And if so, does that make them racist/fascist/Hitlers etc?
Shlomo’s latest comments reminded me that i meant to remark on this:
Taken at face value, this is not true: the French National Front, Wilders’ party in the Netherlands, the Danish People’s Party, the UKIP (which has been said to be similar to Old Labour by Mr Ed, iirc), the Trumpists in the US, are all in favor of maintaining or enlarging the welfare state; and i am probably missing quite a few others.
But if Shlomo meant to say: of the 2 main parties/coalitions in most Western democracies, the one which most supports welfare is also the one that most supports immigration; then it is correct — at this particular historical moment.
Diversity, Security, Welfare, Democracy
Pick any two?
Shlomo,
“Immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe to the USA from the 1890s through 1920s delivered a major constituency to those who favored dramatically enlarging the federal government. Why? Because these were mostly Catholics and Jews with vastly different perspectives on politics and governance than most of the American-born citizens at the time.”
Just take a moment. You know what you sound like don’t you? My ex gf’s family (mother’s side) were Romanian Jews who pitched up on Ellis Island in 1900. They fled persecution and did very well for themselves (by which I mean they also did well for everyone). For fuck’s sake my ex’s mother became head of the AMA.
Maybe they were different in terms of integration Allegedly (this could be apocryphal at best) the celebrated their first Passover in the USA with a hog-roast. Takes all sorts. They had fled from Tsarist pogroms and Romania was a pitch-stop.
And that is why I cannot understand at all why anyone who claims to be libertarian can be display views on immigration like those we have seen here.
NickM, no one commenting here is against LEGAL immigration, like the immigration of your ex girlfriend’s mother. We are discussing ILLEGAL immigration.
I find the OP confusing, because it is about legal immigrants, and then min the last sentence, it is changed to illegal immigrants.
Snorri,
Everywhere from Israel to Japan to Germany to the USA and mostly everywhere else in the West the correlation is clear.
The general correlation is true even if there are a few outliers that are inconsistent.
With that said, the examples you cite are mostly not as Progressive/leftwing as the leftwing parties in their respective countries on welfare state/economic issues so the general correlation still quite clearly holds.
1. The French National Front has historically often been opposed to the welfare state especially in the 1970s and 1980s, favoring lower tax rates and less bureaucracy. It’s true that in the past couple of decades the party has taken a pro-protectionism stance, but its policy prescriptions on other economic matters (taxes, spending) seem no more leftwing than the French socialist party. So this example may weaken the correlation but isn’t really an outlier.
2. Wilders & Danish People Party – fair points, both parties are not as free-market as rightwing parties in their nations, but again these two parties’ policies seem mildly less leftwing than genuinely leftwing parties in their respective countries.
3. UKIP wants to abolish the inheritance tax, is against bedroom tax, supports a more efficient welfare state, and Farage often seems to bang on about nanny staters interfering in people’s lives all the time. My understanding is again that UKIP is not as Progressive as Labor on economic/fiscal issues.
4. Trump supporters are largely drawn from two blocs: the Tea Party and the Evangelicals – neither constituency is as pro-welfare state as the Democrats are. And the Tea Partiers are to the right of the GOP generally on fiscal issues.
Wasn’t African slave importation a major example of immigration no one ever talks about as immigration? It was legal, in some destinations, anyway.
And it has worked out disastrously for the USA. Jazz and soul food hardly outweigh millions of violent crimes and trillions in welfare. But what would have happened if the Africans had bern left in Africa, where they were so happy? In their dreams. Their descendants would now be storming Greece and Germany.
Race is not just important but vital to the success of immigration.
NickM,
I’m Jewish and my great grandparents on both my Mom and Dad’s side came to the USA fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe/Russia in the first two decades of the 1900s. Doesn’t change the facts.
And the facts are that immigration of Southern and Eastern Europeans (particularly Catholics and Jews) in the early 1900s transformed American politics by introducing to the country a large new constituency that did not generally have political views hospitable to/compatible with a genuinely limited national government. Consequently, these immigrants generally helped fuel the rapid growth of the welfare state especially under FDR.
Many were successful in their careers, but that’s entirely besides the point.
I’m not arguing that America should or should not have admitted these immigrants, though personally I’m on the whole happy they were admitted. My point is simply that the result of having done so is extremely clear: America became a less economically free nation as a result.
And BTW I’m not a libertarian.
Someone in the comments mentioned using discernment in choosing who comes into a nation. That’s all fine and dandy in theory, but who does the discerning? Government bureaucrats. And what do they know? Seriously, how do they know that someone will be a net benefit to society? They face the same problem other kinds of central planners face: a lack of adequate knowledge to make a good decision. So you end up with crude and complicated systems that make it difficult for good people to immigrate legally and don’t really do all that much to keep bad people out.
The real problem is that we have disarmed our citizens and screwed up our labor markets. Everything else flows from that. An immigration bureaucracy is just something people support because they don’t have the understanding or courage to support real solutions.
Then set a high bar. Use a points system for residency and citizenship.
Criteria:
1. Language – are they able to communicate in the local language?
2. Education – what is their highest qualification? in what field? Bonus if educated in the same country.
3. Length of stay (for citizenship) – how long have they been in the country n held their residency?
4. Employment – nuff said.
5. Social integration – must have twenty people to vouch n sponsor their citizenship. These sponsors also have conditions – five years minimum between doing so, must be citizens for twenty, and liable to be fined in case of wrong doing by the immigrant.
Somebody who fulfills the above criteria is very likely to be a net benefit.
For once I find myself in agreement with Wobbly, with some qualifications to his suggestion – namely, I wouldn’t let education enter into it (other than maybe basic speaking, reading and writing skills in the local language), while I probably would demand absence of criminal record in previous places of residence (something that is comparatively easy to do these days). Sponsorship (which would naturally include employment in some form or shape) is the main point in my view, although I don’t know that I’d demand as many as 20 locals to vouch. At the same time, the sponsor(s) should have no criminal record either.
Of course for all that to work, we would first need to rid ourselves of welfare and of stupid drug laws. That would be the day.
I for one look forward to all the wonderful start-up companies that all these Muslim immigrants are going to create.
Shlomo Maistre
What’s your argument here? I genuinely don’t understand what your point is.
Your argument was that immigration is result of democracy.
I’m curious about your example of undemocratic society with bigger freedom of speech than modern US.
Frederick the Great’s Prussia is one example.
A little Gedankenexperiment is in order.
You and few friends are in Berlin in the year 1760, carrying a big banner saying:
WE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS WHEN THEY SHOOT THEIR OFFICERS
How far will you go and what will happen to you? The question answers itself ;-(
Darin,
No it wasn’t.
My understanding is that there was quite significant freedom of speech in Prussia; whether the speech you refer to would have been legally permitted is unknown to me. I would not be surprised if such absurd speech had been banned in Prussia, but do you have any evidence to support that?
Even if you are right – so what? Perhaps liberal democracies permit more freedom of speech according to the letter of the law than do monarchies (though even that is not so clear – see modern college campuses, work places, hate crimes, etc.) but in any case I’d still maintain that there is less freedom of speech in enjoyed in democracies than in other societies because public opinion plays a much greater role in regulating freedom of speech in democracies than it does in other societies – usually. Now, it’s hard to make apple to apple comparisons because, well, democracies have sundry technologies like the internet that facilitate all kinds of speech not viable in pre-WW1 Western monarchies (let alone pre 1789 Western monarchies!)
Democracy – because it is slow motion war and inherently unstable – requires greater uniformity of opinion to remain viable, which is why the ruling class helps shape as narrow a public discussion on sensitive matters as possible in the USA. Think about it: what you think impacts me a lot less to others if you can’t vote.
Social ostracism is extremely powerful.
Say the wrong thing at work and you could lose your job. Increasingly, say the wrong thing OUTSIDE OF WORK and you could lose your job.
Johnathan Pearce,
I made no comment with regards to FDR’s stance on immigration. I merely observed the extremely well documented fact that then-recent immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe (especially Jews and Catholics) overwhelmingly supported FDR and helped fuel the massive growth of the welfare state.
How can one “prove” that anything is “bad”? It depends on how you define bad. If you think open borders is more important than limited government then that’s fine but just own up to that position.
So what?
Ok, so what’s your point? You concede that limited government is more important than open borders, BUT people change their minds so America should let in anyone because they will evolve in their cultural and political views?
Anyway, here in the real world, the Protestants – who for over a century ruled the greatest liberal democracy in all of human history – can point to not a SINGLE Protestant on SCOTUS. I’m sure it’s a coincidence that SCOTUS is comprised entirely of Catholics and Jews and that it’s far more left-wing/big government than it was when Protestants still ruled America. I believe it was George Orwell who said: seeing what’s in front of one’s nose is a constant struggle.
Cool.
Like NickM I am unimpressed by a lot of the comments made in response to my OP.
“Macaroni”: Is the harm done by millions of invaders overbalanced by the good that might be done by a few of them who manage to prosper without the help of money taken at the point of a gun from the natives of a land? How about the harm caused by the spectacle of millions of invaders successfully breaking the law, with the assistance of millions of wrongheaded natives? What principle of freedom mandates overriding democratically-instituted laws?
I did not state that such things are “overbalanced”. Don’t put words in my mouth. For what it is worth, given that the majority of illegals are those who have overstayed their visas, it isn’t clear that describing them as “millions of invaders”. Sure, their disregard of the law is wrong and should not be glossed over but also it is worth acknowledging that the majority of them are working for a living. And as I also said, the existence of state welfare complicates everything.
Greytop:
That’s 22 fine entrepreneurs versus how many corpses courtesy of invaders? 6 by one man in one incident in Chicago last week.
See my response above. Also, since some on the anti-immigrant debate often pounce on any case of immigrants getting into trouble as a reason to stop immigration, it is worth noting, for balance, those who are not doing such things, and creating wealth. Fair’s fair.
It is true, as one commenter said, that a person with the smarts to start a business should also be smart enough to get their papers sorted out. In many cases I would agree, but as anyone who has innocently fallen foul of the IRS or any other state body would and should know, it is not always quite so easy as that.
Cal writes:
I for one look forward to all the wonderfful start-up companies that all these Muslim immigrants are going to create
I could not resist: here are some examples here and here. These were found in a few seconds of internet searches.
Schlomo:
How can one “prove” that anything is “bad”? It depends on how you define bad. If you think open borders is more important than limited government then that’s fine but just own up to that position.
Well, you have asserted (I note the lack of links to back them up, so do provide them) that the majority of immigrants from certain parts of the world were supportive of FDR’s New Deal and other widening of State powers. That sounds as if you think something bad, very bad indeed, happened. So maybe you can prove that assertion and argue it through. You can, for example, consider the point that the Progressive Movement in US politics at the end of the 19th Century and early 20th was associated with people such as Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt, who were WASPs, and “American-born”. For that matter, it was the original Anglo-Saxon and later Scotch-Irish settlers of the US who operated the slave trade and the subsequent brutal, statist regime that took a bloody civil war to destroy, and that wasn’t caused by all those socialistic Italians and Russian Jews.
Even if you are right – so what? Perhaps liberal democracies permit more freedom of speech according to the letter of the law than do monarchies (though even that is not so clear – see modern college campuses, work places, hate crimes, etc.) but in any case I’d still maintain that there is less freedom of speech in enjoyed in democracies than in other societies because public opinion plays a much greater role in regulating freedom of speech in democracies than it does in other societies – usually. Now, it’s hard to make apple to apple comparisons because, well, democracies have sundry technologies like the internet that facilitate all kinds of speech not viable in pre-WW1 Western monarchies (let alone pre 1789 Western monarchies!)
A lot depends on what sort of monarchies and democracies one is talking about. The Medieval period of serfdom wasn’t exactly a great period of free enquiry and not a great time to hold dodgy views about religion, etc. The Spanish Inquisition was a classic case of using fear and social pressure to stifle liberty of thought and it took place under the likes of the Spanish monarchy.
Democracy certainly has its limitations. Libertarians (you state you are not one and I can believe it) often make this point, and like to quote Tocqueville’s point about the “tyranny of the majority”.
You dismiss my point about Asian Americans’ success with a “so-what?”. It is plainly obvious what my point is: a group of persons who have been at times vilified (such as Japanese getting interned during WW2) have been highly successful and integrated into their host nation, thereby undermining the stance of people such as you who claim that outsiders or new arrivals pose some sort of threat.
Ok, so what’s your point? You concede that limited government is more important than open borders, BUT people change their minds so America should let in anyone because they will evolve in their cultural and political views?
Don’t put words in my mouth. I am first and foremost a libertarian and if it comes down to it, yes, limited government comes before open borders, and I am not defending those who break the law. I am, however (as I have said several times), noting that illegal immigrants needn’t be always damned in the way you are some others here are doing. There is, it might be worth noting, a fact about human freedom that a part of it is the freedom to get away from a shitty situation into a better one, and the USA’s greatness is in part because it has opened itself to people with the gumption to make the move.
Anyway, here in the real world, the Protestants – who for over a century ruled the greatest liberal democracy in all of human history – can point to not a SINGLE Protestant on SCOTUS. I’m sure it’s a coincidence that SCOTUS is comprised entirely of Catholics and Jews and that it’s far more left-wing/big government than it was when Protestants still ruled America. I believe it was George Orwell who said: seeing what’s in front of one’s nose is a constant struggle.
What, you mean those wonderful protestants on the Supreme Court who voted to uphold the institution of slavery? Those people?
The expansion of the state has been going for well over a hundred years, although there have been some retreats and twists. Consider the controversial Roe vs Wade decision. If it is true that Jews and Catholics have been running things in that troublemaking way of theirs, why do you think the legalisation of abortion that RvsW was around happened? Not very “Catholic”, was it?
It is poignant to think that not so long ago, it was considered an issue that JFK was a Catholic and people made a fuss about it. In fact, his Catholicism hardly seems remotely relevant to his tenure in the WH.
Finally, in response to my point about the changing perceptions of the political affiliations of Muslims in Britain, the best Schlomo can do is type “cool”. Are you trying to just reinforce my impression of your being an arse? Cut out the snideness. It has been noted in the log.
Johnathan Pearce,
http://cuomeka.wrlc.org/exhibits/show/politics/background/catholics-and-roosevelt
“Millions of Catholic voters helped bring Roosevelt his landslide victory in 1936. Estimates of the number of Catholics voting for FDR range from 70% – 81%.”
“Organizations such as the National Alliance of Bohemian Catholics, Lithuanian Roman Catholic Alliance, Polish National Catholic Church, and Slovak Catholic Sokol expressed public support for Roosevelt and the New Deal during the 1936 presidential campaign.”
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp509.htm
“The last Republican presidential candidate to win a plurality of the Jewish vote was Warren Harding in 1920 (when Socialist candidate Eugene V. Debs took an estimated 38 percent to Harding’s 43 percent and Democrat James Cox’s 19 percent). Between 1928 and 1948, Democrats Al Smith, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman won at least 75 percent of the Jewish vote, at times gaining as much as 90 percent of the Jewish vote.”
I’m not taking a stance on whether it was bad or not.
Okay, you are right. Will do.
Johnathan Pearce,
Yes, American society was very much ruled by WASPs at that time; nonetheless, the Progressive movement was disproportionately supported by Jews and Catholics as they arrived in the first few decades of the 1900s.
True. I never said it was. But that doesn’t undermine my points at all.
Fair points. I would add that a lot also depends on what sort of free inquiry one prioritizes.
My main point is that in democracy public opinion regulates the exercise of free speech far more than in most other types of societies and that it’s far from clear that people in democracy enjoy greater freedom of speech. Universities in modern America teach exceptionally narrow views on legitimate/good/accurate history, economics, philosophy, religion, morality, poetry, art, literature, etc. Modern Western democracy is highly dogmatic, very narrow-minded, and genuinely, well, “religious” about many, many topics.
I never claimed that outsiders or new arrivals pose some sort of threat. I have simply pointed out that immigrants to USA from Southern/Eastern Europe in the early 1900s helped fuel the rise of the welfare state.
Fair enough.
I agree that America has done great good by opening its doors to many millions of people fleeing bad situations. It’s certainly in and of itself a good thing that people can get away from persecution.
Never claimed they were wonderful. The % of SCOTUS Justices who are Protestant is inversely related to big government.
Not sure I entirely understand your point. I have been talking about fiscal/economic policy, not cultural issues.
But I’ll note that religions get warped in democracy because the personal is political. Many American Catholics and a vast majority American Jews do not hold beliefs on abortion that accord with their respective religions. 1 example: according to Gallup 23% of American Catholics thought abortion should be legal in ANY circumstance in 2004-2005 as opposed to a mere 20% who thought it should be illegal in all circumstances.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/22222/religion-politics-inform-americans-views-abortion.aspx
I agree.
Okay so people assumed Muslims would vote Tory and then they voted leftwing as they have been doing recently in mostly every Western democracy they are in? If anything, this would seem to support my perspective which is that cultural norms/political views/religion of immigrant groups have major impact on how they vote so even when one group goes to diverse nations they bring with them certain views that impact how they vote in all those countries.
Two things I want to add:
1. Catholics and Jews (I’m a proud Jew) have overwhelmingly become highly productive and law-abiding citizens in America. Both groups have contributed enormously to the economic might, general wellbeing, and creative energy of this country. I am personally very grateful that my ancestors, fleeing persecution, were able to come to America about a century ago.
2. If you consider Rabbinic authority in the conservative (this is not political – it’s a denomination between reform and orthodox) and reform movements authoritative (I don’t) then my point – that a vast majority of American Jews do not hold opinions on abortion consistent with their religion – is probably wrong. I could write a LOT about this, but I’ll just note that Orthodox Judaism is the only major denomination that conserves within it a genuine respect for traditional, religious sources, which thereby shapes perspectives and lifestyles of its adherents without much regard to the norms of broader society. Unsurprisingly, there will hardly be very many Reform or Conservative Jews in due time because they have very low birth rates and marry non-Jewish spouses with very high frequency.
Now whilst I am far from reflexively ‘pro democracy’, please give examples of societies in which you think free speech could be exercised with less risk than is currently the case in most of the First World (but please to not take that as me blithely endorsing the current state of free speech in said First World).
Perry,
1. Risk of what?
2. Free speech about what?
With that said…
Prussia on most topics.
The Gupta Empire on most things.
The Zhou Dynasty on most things.
Hunnic Empire on most topics (Attila did not care what religion you followed).
Kingdom of France most of the time on most topics (largely excepting religious matters following Martin Luther’s appearance on the scene).
The Roman Empire on most topics most of the time.
It’s true that in these places you could not (for the most part) question the legitimacy of the ruler’s right to rule. It’s also true that doing so in modern Western democracies is permitted legally – but culturally it’s a very different story.
I reiterate that it’s tough to make apple to apple comparisons of historical monarchies and modern Western democracies because modern technologies have enabled a vast diversity of speech not possible in earlier times.
In the places I cite the ruler and the establishment did not usually care if you think X type of economics, science, history, art, poetry, literature, philosophy, etc is correct/accurate/legitimate. The establishments of modern Western nations enforce strikingly narrow views on most of these topics through institutionalized (and largely state-funded) public schools and colleges and extreme social ostracism.
In democracy everyone’s opinions on mostly anything can impact others’ lives via the state so it’s important to the establishment that everyone more or less agrees on as much as possible.
Ironically, in many (though far from all) historical societies where religion was the basis for the legitimacy of monarchies there has been far more vigorous public dialogue, discussion about the best form of government (and the ruler’s right to rule) than there generally is in modern democracies/constitutional republics.
Why?
1. Maybe it’s because it’s so obvious that democracy/constitutional republic is the ideal form of government.
2. Maybe it’s because there are greater risks (social ostracism) involved in calling democracy into question.
3. Maybe it’s because people are content/distracted with modern wealth and technology.
4. Maybe it’s because modern military technology affords rulers of modern democracies such overwhelming power over so many people that everyone knows a change cannot come by the people rebelling so why even discuss forms of government.
I think it’s not 1.
It’s fucking depressing how incredibly narrow, and simple public discussion is in America these days; the beliefs of professional pundits, writers, professors are absurdly uniform..like the uniform of an army. There are a few exceptions and Samizdata is one.
Shlomo, thanks for your comments.
Your points about Catholics/Jews been strong supporters of “progressive” political changes don’t bear out your argument that persons of such a cultural/religious mindset are significantly more collectivist in mentality than among Protestants. It is rather about class and about perceptions of being “outsiders”.
Consider, in the late 19th/early 20th century period when millions emigrated from southern Europe and Eastern Europe, the US, in this post-Civil War period, was industrialising at a furious pace. The country was becoming more urban and less reliant on agriculture. Such changes are associated on the whole with the rise of unions, of increasing class-based political rhetoric, and politicians such as Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Wilson (and in later years, Johnson), played to it. Among supposedly progressive people, things such as state planning, regulation of labour and even what we now think of vile views such as eugenics, were considered intelligent opinions at the time. Among a lot of people, particularly the WASP elites that dominated the universities and chattering classes, there was a lot of admiration for European, particularly German, ideas around things such as education. This was enormously influential and was already getting traction as the southern/eastern Europe immigrants were arriving at Ellis Island. It has taken a lot of people a long time to see the folly of such views for what they were. Ironically, Jewish intellectuals such as Milton Friedman, Irving Kristol, Ayn Rand, etc, played a big role in pushing against these ideas.
But had those immigrants been WASPs, rather than Jews from St Petersburg or Catholics from Naples, the same process would have occurred in their support for collectivist views of an FDR or today’s Obama. I don’t think religious affiliations are good predictors of specific political platforms – the point I made earlier about Muslims in the UK is an example of this.
There are certain correlations between a specific religious outlook and political/other loyalties and traditions. Albion’s Seed and James Bennett’s book, America 3.0, offers some interesting insights on this score.
Johnathan,
Absolutely correct. In fact, I largely subscribe to Mencius Moldbug’s view that the intellectual origin of modern Progressivism in the West is found within a pernicious stream of Protestantism.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/06/ultracalvinist-hypothesis-in.html
I admit that it looks suspicious that I think Progressivism originated in Protestantism even though Protestants in the USA generally oppose Progressivism more than most other major groups. It’s another one of those historical ironies much like how modern Zionism originated among and was spearheaded primarily by secular Jews even though both in Israel and in the diaspora support for Zionism among Jews is INVERSELY correlated with their religiosity, though there are some exceptions.
Well, a substantial portion of the hereditary aristocracy in Europe pre-WWI recognized much of the folly of Progressive views as they were first introduced. The gradual decline of the aristocracy and it’s collapse in WWI was an immense loss of cultural understanding and received wisdom that will IMO never be fully recovered because you can’t make an egg from an omelette.
I’ll concede that Friedman, Kristol, and Rand diagnosed some of the harmful consequences of Progressive policies, but they did not really understand the essential folly of Progressivism. Hardly anybody these days does understand it IMO. Mencius Moldbug (who is Jewish) does.
Eventually, yes. I’d argue that the process would have been slower, but yes.
Well, I think religious affiliation is one indication of how people will likely vote. It’s not the only factor, but it’s one. And the point about Muslims in the UK – again Muslims vote for more leftwing political parties in vast majority of modern West so I don’t see how that supports your perspective.
I have read Albion’s Seed; I’ll check out America 3.0. BTW, Albion’s Seed helped solidify my understanding of the US Civil War – that it was a continuation of the English Civil War in the anglosphere (the Union was similar in many ways to the Roundheads and the Confederacy was similar in many ways to the Cavaliers).
According to Gallup last year 28% of Protestants would vote for a Socialist for POTUS, while 46% of Catholics would (there’s no data on how Jews would vote).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183791/support-nontraditional-candidates-varies-religion.aspx
But look, this is just one country in one relatively small period of time. I think that one factor that impacts how people vote is religion, but it doesn’t simply come down to just that. Yes, class and perceptions of being outsiders are certainly factors also. What kinds of policies people support is complex and there are many dynamic factors at play. And yes Progressivism would have prevailed in the USA even if Catholics and Jews had not arrived in the early 1900s.
If we assume that small government (whether in a monarchy, democracy, dictatorship etc) is desirable then my view is that different cultures are better at keeping government small in different types of countries and in different historical circumstances.
In Western history monarchies have delivered at least as efficient and effective governance as modern democracies if one accounts for the extraordinary technologies we have today… but Catholic monarchies were generally the ones that delivered the most stable governance and smallest government of all. The long periods of peace, notable prosperity, and superbly rich culture (art, music, literature) generated within historical Catholic monarchies has given challenging circumstances been in my opinion quite impressive and at times breathtaking. As Maurras said “the forty Kings who in a thousand years made France” – this was an extraordinary feat. The modern West owes great debts to many Catholic royal dynasties, such as the Medicis who provided great stability to their region with competent political leadership and their legendary Medici bank, fostered the Italian arts renaissance, and developed modern accounting practices.
And despite historical persecution we Jews have contributed much to the West – far beyond our meager numbers should allow – in medicine, economics, science, engineering, finance, literature, absurdly long blog posts, etc. It ain’t called Silicon Wadi for nothing.
I actually think that while Protestants are slowing Progressivism down, it will most likely be Jews and Catholics leading the charge to find something new in due time.
I don’t think any group of people can be blamed for Progressivism and everyone – Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and others – has a role to play to try to make the world better. Or so I hope on my optimistic days.
As an historical note…..
The victory of Franklin Roosevelt was NOT caused by the immigration of “Catholics and Jews” to the United States.
Franklin Roosevelt actually ran as a conservative in 1932 (denouncing Herbert Hoover as a “socialist”) – and even by 1936 (when it was obvious that “FDR” was a statist, although not as statist as many people of the time) Franklin Roosevelt won many States where “Catholics and Jews” did not live in large numbers, and Franklin Roosevelt won these Protestant States overwhelmingly.
I would also point out that Barack Obama (both in 2008 and 2012) won many States where “blacks and hispanics” only live in trivial numbers.
People of any “race” can be Americans IF THEY WANT TO BE.
And people of any “race” can reject the limited government principles of the American Bill of Rights” IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO.
What led to Franklin Roosevelt and the “New Deal” was not “Catholics and Jews” – it was the rise of state education in the 19th century.
This system (by its nature – as well as by later conscious choice) tends to make people “look to the government” for the solution to all serious problems.
By the way…..
Statism (in education and everything else) was pushed in 18th and 19th century Europe above all by PRUSSIA.
Prussia was “white” and “Protestant” – indeed such people as Bismark waged a “War of Cultures” against the Roman Catholic Church.
And Frederick the Great (the founder of Prussian State education and much other statism) was certainly no democract or believer in Constitutional government in the 18th century.
And Bismark crushed constitutional government in Prussia in the 19th century – by increasing taxation in the early 1860s WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PRUSSIAN PARLIAMENT.
To increase taxation and to collect the money by force without the consent of Parliament is the classic end of Constitutional government.
It is what John Hampden in England died to prevent in the 17th century.
Yet many British and American “intellectuals” came to love Prussia and “Prussianism” in the 18th and 19th centuries.
If one wants to see the “cultural” (and intellectual) origins of Progressivism and the New Deal – here is where it is, in Prussianism.
Hence, for example, my little feud with Dr Sean Gabb.
It is not accident that we are on opposite sides in relation to both World Wars.
Do you love the Bill of Rights, and the libertarian (philosophical libertarian – Free Will) philosophy on which it is based?
Does it “speak to you”?
Would you die to protect it?
If “yes” then you are my brother or my sister regardless of your “race” – and I love you.
If “no” – to Hell with you.
Absolutely correct. In fact, I largely subscribe to Mencius Moldbug’s view that the intellectual origin of modern Progressivism in the West is found within a pernicious stream of Protestantism.
Yes, I have come across versions of this. An issue in general here is that old bug, the correlation/causation mashup that is easy to do. We see things happening – lots of protestants/whoever going to a country, and we see certain behaviours, and we conclude there must be a cause and effect here. Of course, there can be causative forces at work; one of the books to which I link draws out the idea the different Christian strains of the US settlers meant there were different social, economic and cultural effects, but again, these are not all that easy to delineate.
For that matter, Jews and Catholics, as you no doubt know, come in many different flavours. The sort of Jewish settler in Israel whose grandson runs an IT firm and has flown an F-16 over Syria is not the same as Woody Allen or your average Noo York Jewish banker.
Etc.
Johnathan: Extremely well said.
Paul, likewise.
Certainly and if you read some NRx material you’d find out that there’s rather more to the case to be made for causation than simple correlation.
Do we?
Another red herring. I obviously never claimed that there aren’t differences among individuals.
Another red herring.
Who said that FDR’s election or re-election was caused by the immigration of Catholics and Jews to the USA? I said that the immigration of Catholics and Jews to the USA helped fuel the rise of the welfare state. Given the overwhelming statistics I have provided on this matter, it’s obviously quite clear I’m right about this.
Obviously FDR won many states where Catholics and Jews did not live in large numbers. Nonetheless, Catholics & Jews voted disproportionately for FDR.
If you intend this as a serious argument it only show how little you understand about the idea of proportionality. That Obama won many states where there were trivial numbers of blacks and hispanics does NOT change the reality that these two groups voted for Obama proportionally more often than those not in these groups.
Not sure who disputed that wonderful & beautiful notion but it certainly was not me.
How many libertarians who “would die to protect” libertarian ideals actually, you know, do?
Talk is cheap.
Should have said (take out the word INVERSELY)
It’s another one of those historical ironies much like how modern Zionism originated among and was spearheaded primarily by secular Jews even though both in Israel and in the diaspora support for Zionism among Jews is correlated with their religiosity, though there are some exceptions.
Now it makes more sense and it’s accurate. Cool.