Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Would the United States Become Like Belgium?
I’ll try to answer to HVT’s question about what I believe the benefit of admitting Syrian refugees to be tomorrow. Today I want to give Larry Koler’s question my best shot. Larry and several other Ricochet members asked me why I feel confident that the United States won’t end up like Belgium — in other words, with a large, poorly assimilated community of easily-radicalized, potentially violent Muslims on its hands, who bring with them the most degraded pathologies of the communities from which they come.
If the European experience of Muslim immigration has been so unhappy, Larry asked me, why should we expect the American experience to be any different?
First, I too consider this an open question, at this point, particularly given that so many of you are telling me it is. But I didn’t ten years ago, when I wrote a book titled Menace in Europe: Why the Continent’s Crisis is America’s, Too. One of the subjects I wrote about — not the only one — was Europe’s experience of Islamic immigration. That part of the book received too much emphasis, though. The argument I was making was that Europe’s inability to make Europeans out of Muslim immigrants was a symptom of a wider problem; and it was that wider problem I was writing about.
Crown Forum’s sales force wanted the title Menace in Europe: Why the Continent’s Crisis is America’s, Too. I didn’t like it, and didn’t feel it described the book, but I didn’t have the confidence to insist on keeping my title. Mine was Blackmailed by History: The Sleeping Ghosts of Europe Wake. The sales force thought the books with the word “History” wouldn’t sell, and that it had to have “America” in the title, or people wouldn’t think it relevant to their lives. Perhaps they were right. The book didn’t sell all that well anyway, but perhaps it would have sold even more poorly had I insisted.
Doing the research for that book, and writing it, led me to conclude that America was so different from Europe, historically and culturally, that it was unlikely to replicate Europe’s pattern. But here’s a point I’d stress: I wrote that book ten years ago. It’s possible, as some of you argue, that the United States has been so fundamentally transformed since then that my arguments no longer apply. But if so, I submit, we have much bigger problems than the admission of 10,000 Syrian refugees.
In the first chapter, I described a series of recent terrorist attacks in Europe, all committed by Muslim radicals, and noted — this was in 2005, long before anyone had heard of ISIS — “‘The same thing will happen soon in the United States, and the bombers will come from Europe.’ They will come from Europe because it is comparatively easy to enter the United States if you carry a European passport, and because Europe is — as it has always been — the breeding ground of the world’s most dangerous ideologues.” Fortunately, it didn’t happen as soon as I thought it would, but obviously, I stand by that prediction.
The title Blackmailed by History was meant to evoke two themes:
The first theme is that Europeans are behaving now as Europeans have always behaved. Many seemingly novel developments in European politics and culture are in fact nothing new at all — they have ancient roots in Europe’s past. And what is that past? From the sack of Rome to the Yalta Conference, that past has been one of nearly uninterrupted war and savagery. Ethnic wars, class wars, revolutionary wars, religious wars, wars of ideology, and genocide are not aberrations in Europe’s history, they are its history. An interregnum from these ancient conflicts endured from 1945 to the end of the Cold War, when Europe’s destiny was in the hands of the two superpowers. With the collapse of the Soviet Empire, however, history has reasserted itself: Those disturbing sounds from Europe are its old, familiar ghosts. They are rattling their chains.
The second theme is that this history has culminated in a peculiar, powerful European mood. Europeans, especially young Europeans, sense in their lives a cultural, spiritual, and ideological void, one that is evident in the art, the language, the literature of contemporary Europe; in the way they talk about their existence in cafés, in discotheques, and on the Internet; in their music, in their heroes, in their family lives, and above all in the way they face threats to their civilization — and ours.
Two historic events in particular had reverberated through Europe, I argued. The first was the death of Christianity. Europe has in the past several centuries seen a really complete loss of belief in any form of religious faith, personal immortality, or salvation. The past two centuries may in a sense be viewed as a series of struggles to find a replacement for this loss: In France, the idea of France itself; in Germany, the mystical Aryan ideal.
The second was the utter, the complete catastrophe of the two World Wars, which put an end to every form of idealism in Europe. It’s impossible to understate the effect of the postwar aftershocks: All secular substitutes for faith, particularly those based in the notion of the supremacy of European culture, have lost their hold, and understandably so: What Frenchman can stand before the graveyards of Ypres or Verdun and without choking on the words profess his allegiance to the mission civilatrice? This loss of cultural confidence, I argued, made Europe particularly incapable of firmly asserting European values, given that it had none — beyond a sense that life should, at least, be well-ordered and pleasurable. Social and moral structures in Europe had, I argued, become bureaucratic structures: Like Turing machines, they served ends that weren’t specified and might not even exist.
“The fall of ideologies now casts a deadly shadow over every ideal,” wrote the French philosopher Chantal Delsol. Utopian ideologies were in their capacity to inspire like cathedrals, and Europe has watched the collapse of one cathedral after another, leaving modern Europeans humbled and paralyzed by self-doubt.
Now we get to the part where I have to ask myself: To what extent is this now true of America? A poll conducted in 2002 found that while 61 percent of Americans had hope for the future, only 29 percent of the French shared it, and only 15 percent of the Germans. At the time I wrote that book, suicide was the second-leading cause of death among the young and middle-aged; in the United States it was the eighth. I did not see it as an accident that Americans were both more hopeful than Europeans and more apt to believe that their country stood for something greater and more noble than themselves.
But do they still feel this way? In America, hope for the future is now, according to polls, the lowest on record — especially among older Americans. And as I’ve written here before, the American suicide rate is rising precipitously, even more so if you consider drug overdose as a form of suicide.
At its fundament, the radicalisation of European Muslims is a distilled form of anti-Occidentalism. It derives from this group’s profound alienation from Europe. A large part of this alienation is socioeconomic: The social and economic composition of the Muslim community in Europe is different from that of the United States. In the United States, Muslims are geographically dispersed; in Europe, they are concentrated and ghettoized. In the US, Muslims are largely middle-class professionals; in Europe, most remain stubbornly stuck in the working class or unemployed underclass. This is not the cause of the terrorist impulse. (The terrorists themselves tend to be strikingly prosperous by comparison.) Terrorism is caused by an ideological virus. But this virus propagates best under certain breeding conditions: Societies with large cohorts of frustrated, hopeless, unemployed young men find their immune systems compromised when diseases of the soul are at large. In this respect, there is now a parallel to the United States; and perhaps it’s a warning sign that there are a shocking number of young, male Americans — radicals without access to an Islamist ideology, but radicals all the same — who feel most alive when committing acts of sensational violence.
Muslim immigrants to Europe were never expected to integrate. They were never expected, even, to stay in Europe: They were brought to Europe to fill postwar labor shortages in Europe’s factories. They were never truly welcome; and they knew this all too acutely. The experience of immigration wasn’t redemptive, as it has historically been in the United States; it was bitter.
To quote again from the book:
No one but a fool would argue that the United States is free from religious and ethnic tension, that immigration is an uncontroversial issue in America, or that there are no Islamic radicals in the United States. It is a difference of degree — but differences of degree can amount to a difference in kind.
Another key point: Education and social class upon arrival appear to account, in Europe, for the radically different markers of assimilative success in immigrant communities — far more so than religious belief. The evidence? In England, for example, Muslims immigrants whose parents were educated, English-speaking professionals fared just as well as Hindus.
Why, I asked — and again, this was in 2005 — were Bangladeshi and Pakistani immigrants to the United States less alienated, less economically marginalized, and less anguished than those in Britain, and why did they show less inclination toward antisocial behavior, including Islamist violence? I concluded — after considering several hypotheses — that the key lay in Britain’s class structure, a stubborn relic of the feudal era, which made upward mobility a remote dream. By contrast, the United States has always been a country of settlers: The idea that an immigrant may arrive penniless on Ellis Island and become, through thrift and industry, a millionaire has until recently been a central and defining trope of American national mythology.
But most important distinction is something hardest to quantify: Immigrants to America have always wanted to become American. Choosing America, as the Brazilian poet Nelson Ascher wrote to me, “usually implied accepting Rilke’s dictum: You must change your life. … Muslims who opt for the U.S. do it because they are tired of being Muslims and want to keep, in the long run, at best, only some culinary habits. Not so in Europe.”
The book is about many other things, including my fear that other historic sources of European radicalism had only been temporarily stilled. I fear I’m right about that. Anyway, you can read the whole thing to see all of my arguments spelled out, with footnotes, but in essence: I assumed the United States of 2005 would readily assimilate Muslim immigrants as completely as it had every other kind of immigrant before.
But perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps the loss of two wars, the financial crisis, and the Obama administration have so fundamentally destroyed America’s boisterous self-confidence, its Borg-like ability to take any human being and make him an American, that admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees would be the last straw.
If so, however, the Syrian refugees are not the problem.
I’ll close with what I thought perceptive comments from Josh Treviño’s Facebook page:
… the purported cultural and political perils of mass immigration are actually societal weaknesses of the destination countries. (All things being equal, added population is added economic activity, which is added power: a good thing.) If you’re a nation with a robust birthrate and a Jacksonian sense of self, and you don’t mind demanding its swift adoption by new arrivals, then those arrivals can be properly additive. If on the other hand you are barely managing a replacement birthrate and you aren’t terribly sure it’s fair to make the folks just off the boat declare allegiance to the flag, whichever flag it is, then they will respond as rational people do, and de facto colonize rather than emigrate. In other words, the base problem isn’t the migrants — it’s us. …
… this passage from Hinderaker needs addressing, as it is such a commonplace on the anti-immigration right. It is wrong, but it is not irrational:
“[T]here is no possible way for the advanced Western countries to absorb the billions of people who would like to live in them, especially since most of those who want to enjoy the material fruits of Western democracy have little or no understanding of the values and principles that make Western societies successful.”
This is partly correct: the average migrant from source country X probably has little appreciation for, and still less experience of, liberal democracy and its underlying principles. The boats aren’t loaded with Jeffersonian ideologues — they’re loaded with, well, people who have experienced and understand the things they have. The reason they’re on those boats, or on that trek, is because those things have been the opposite of the fruits of a law-ordered liberty. So far so good. This is a problem.
What gets missed, however, is that it has always been a problem: the great waves of migration to the United States in particular were not a consequence of political liberality taking root in faraway lands and inspiring its adherents to cross oceans. They were consequences of a life marked by pogroms, autocracy, and rape by Cossacks; or by grinding near-serfdom in Calabria; or by brutal landlordism willing to starve your family to death in County Cork; or by genocidal violence in the fields outside Phnom Penh. We forget that the prime driver of millions of to our shores in particular across centuries was not high-minded idealism, but a sum of human misery and oppression so staggering as to defy comprehension. Sure, there are the Peter Schramms and the Lee Ung-Pyongs who fled for freedom in an atmosphere of considered appreciation for the merits of liberty — if you haven’t read Schramm’s epic “Born American, but in the wrong place” essay, look it up immediately — but there are vastly more who just wanted a life of decency, safety, and dignity, not because they were raised to experience any of those things, but because they were human.
A nation grounded in a proposition about the basic nature of humanity was prepared to receive and educate them to that end, to the point that we ended up a country sustained by the descendants of tyranny, all the more determined thereby to defend liberty. If we aren’t that place any longer — and perhaps Europe, a land of blood and soil, never was — then let’s be honest about it. Yesterday, at Sunday School, I had the privilege of teaching among the students three young women, all sitting together as friends: one from Russia, one from Eritrea, and one from Lebanon. One could hardly imagine national origins more steeped in autocracy, repression, and violence, yet here they are, fully American and consciously appreciative of it — explicitly because of those origins.
That’s what America does. If that’s no longer what we wish to do — if we now fear them more than we believe in ourselves — then let’s at least conduct the conversation with that honesty, rather than cloaking our un-confidence in the pretense of superiority.
I agree. This small number of refugees — who have certainly been better vetted than most immigrants — are not apt to hurt us. If we fear these refugees more than we believe in ourselves, however — and it seems that we do — then keeping them out will in no way fix the problem. It will only serve to mask a problem that is vastly more serious. And that problem is that we no longer believe in ourselves.
This past week has prompted a deep crisis in confidence in me, certainly. Until now, I would have placed myself solidly in the camp of American conservatives. I cannot imagine pulling the lever for Hillary Clinton; but I’m suddenly forced to imagine sitting this one out. It is tragic, but I can’t imagine voting for politicians so defeatist about America, so crushed by this past decade, that they think five-year-old Syrian orphans pose a serious threat to the greatest and most benevolent superpower history has known — a country that invented the modern world, put a man on the moon, is exploring Mars, has the world’s freest press, that invented the Internet, conquered epidemic disease, destroyed the Nazis, defeated Imperial Japan, sent the Soviet Empire to the ash heap of history, and is still the source of 90 percent of the world’s real creativity — and still represents a dream of redemption for so many countless people on this suffering planet. That defeatism, that fear, is not the America I knew growing up, and the willingness to luxuriate in that despair and defeatism — and use it for electoral advantage — sits poorly with me, a proud American. This is not the America that made us the greatest country the world has ever known, but a county like any other, and while I will always love it and be grateful to it; clearly something precious has been lost, and it is a terrible thing to see.
If excommunication from the conservative movement is the price I’ll pay for saying this, so be it. But here I stand. I can do no other.
Published in General
Absolutely right. I said more-or-less the same thing somewhere else, yesterday. Absent this sort of information from the Commander-in-Chief/Leader of the Free World, people will fill in the gaps themselves, and you get this sort of disputatious and repetitive round-and-round that we’re currently engaged in.
I get the sense that BHO thinks the sort of leadership you describe is beneath him, and that if we are so vacuous and stupid that we can’t immediately see the brilliance of his plan, or if we are not inclined to follow blindly and trustingly in whatever direction he wants to go, then he considers us contemptible worms that he can mock, and if he can set us, each against the other, then so much the better.
Someone (J of E?) replied to me that he thinks it’s part of Obama’s plan, in the sense of a ‘divide and conquer’ sort of thing. I think there’s something to that, because I don’t think the strategy (or lack thereof) is accidental.
A big part of that history was a 40 year immigration moratorium.
As I said, there are degrees of assimilation. My version of assimilation is not romanticized at all, and I do not know of anyone with any sense who expects it to be so. Cheering for Italy in the World Cup, or enjoying a nice bowl of Charnina (ducks-blood soup), is one thing. Sawing the heads off, or blowing up, the people who welcomed you into their country when you were a tired, poor, hungry, huddled mass, because something about their way of life offends you, is another thing entirely.
You are correct when you imply that the burden of assimilation must be on the people who need to assimilate. Not on the country they move to.
You’re really wrong about only one thing.
I already am overseas.
I’m a Brit. Who loves this country.
Next question?
Re the impact of WWI on Europe…this is from Peter Drucker’s first book, The End of Economic Man:
In a chapter titled “The Return of the Demons,” Drucker addresses the psychological roots of Fascism. One of these was the experience of the Great War–”Modern war appeared to be the denial of all tenets on which the mechanical and rational conception of society is based. This was not because war is amechanical and arational, but because it reduces mechanization and rationalization to absurdity…the war showed the individual suddenly as an isolated, helpless, powerless atom in a world of irrational monsters.” Another factor was the Great Depression, which “proved that irrational and incalculable forces also rule peacetime society: the threat of sudden permanant unemployment, of being thrown on the industrial scrap heap on one’s prime or even before one has started to work. Against these forces the individual finds himself as helpless, isolated, and atomized as against the forces of machine war.” As a result of these factors, “The European masses realized for the first time that existence in this society is governed not by rational and sensible, but by blind, irrational, and demonic forces.”
That’s a pretty nifty way to elide a lot of difficult events and facts that might undermine your point. No wonder you find Claire so compelling.
Many of those immigrants also became mentors to the likes of Saul Alinsky and were key figures in infiltrating American institutions to hollow them out from the inside. That knife cuts both ways.
But really, the point wasn’t made to defend or condemn the events of the Red Scare, either of them. It was only to point out that this virtuous past that Claire waxes on about more in sorrow than in anger is a rhetorical fiction which she creates to justify her sense of alienation from a country and culture which she consciously and deliberately set herself apart from many, many years ago.
If Claire’s main point is essentially “Yes, circumstances have changed for the worse. But damn the torpedoes… full speed ahead!”, then I can accept that kind of reckless optimism. It might not change my mind, but I can respect it.
re religion, especially Christianity, in the US versus Europe: I believe a growing number of Americans, including many who are nominally Christians, are actually followers of what C S Lewis called the religion of the Materialist Magician. These are people who believe in magical crystals, in astrology, in a conscious Gaia…all while denouncing formal religions as ‘unscientific.’ Typically they are also quite concerned with ‘purity’ in the sense Claire described in her chapter on “Black-Market Religion: the Nine Lives of Jose Bove”
Also, it’s worth pointing out that it was after that massive wave of immigration from Ireland and elsewhere that FDR was elected and America took a hard turn away from the Constitution and toward a European-style nanny state. It has been a steady march toward an omnipotent central government ever since.
But this isn’t that situation. We’re facing a massive wave from Mexico (that ship has sailed), but not from the war-torn Middle East. The main concerns here are of this administration’s carelessness regarding jihadists, not of Islam taking over America.
Assimilation of immigrants has become much more problematic because of our loss of civilizational self-confidence. Consider, for example, the University of Minnesota, where the student government rejected a plan for continuing recognition of 9/11 anniversaries, on grounds that this would be “offensive” to Muslim students.
Things like this…and there have been lots and lots of them…rip the common culture apart and encourage immigrants to remain isolated in their own mental and cultural worlds. And when that happens, it is much easier for actual terrorists to survive in a community of people who will not condemn them or turn them in.
Seven cats. Seven.
Sorry for the jump-cut but brevity compels. The real reason that I find Claire so compelling is that my default-mode is along the lines of “rubble don’t make no trouble.” Claire frequently is the Ricochet superego when the Ricochet id starts to get out of control.
Stop being boring, repetitive, and tense, Basil. Cat orphanages are a necessary public service. What’s more cats provide ideal observation subjects to understand the mind of a terrorist
Gotta put in a good word for Claire, too. I’m here at Ricochet because Claire personally invited me here five years ago and even gave me a temporary free membership. As strongly as I disagree with her regarding the refugees, I appreciate her thoughtful, reasoned arguments. And even if she does get a bit heated with her rhetoric from time to time, I’m hardly in any position to complain!
Claire, I don’t really think the issue is about 10,000 Syrian refugees. A lot of people believe that this would only be a small down payment against a much larger influx. There are surely at least a million people in the Middle East whose situation is as desperate as the Syrians…and the Democrats appear to believe, in practice, in absolutely unlimited immigration, at least of those individuals likely to become Democratic voters.
People also observe that there was very little Administration or media interest, 6 months of a year ago, in the plight of Christian or Yazidi refugees, or even those Iraqis who served as translators for US forces and are now facing murderous retaliation…which makes them think that many of the declared ‘humanitarians’ are really motivated by issues of domestic politics and ‘fundamental transformation.’
Hey Aaron.
Sure that bothers me, as does the uncontrolled borders. A two-generation moratorium may be too much but we have to rationalize our immigration/refugee policy beyond open-borders with periodic amnesty.
As I reach the age when it is obvious that I am not going to be around to see how all this turns out I am starting to take the long view. Heck the New Deal isn’t even 100 years ago. Vietnamese generalisimo Cho En lai is supposed to have said about historical impact of the French Revolution “too soon to tell.”
I love England Walking around London, St Paul’s, Westminster Abbey etc you know that centuries of history have been endured but its still England. I believe that that will be true of America as well.
The personal attacks on the author of this post have gotten increasingly bitter, mean-spirited, and ugly. Please address the issue at hand rather than attacking the person. That is the point of Ricochet. Thank you.
I agree. Accusing folks of being afraid of five-year-old orphans is wrong. Gabriel, blow your horn.
Not sure I understand. If the fellow standing up in the Rockwell picture tries to draw a likeness of Mohamed he would as a result have endangered himself because of hostile – really hostile – reactions by Muslims. This is a pre-existing condition that by itself is unacceptable, let alone allowing more Muslims into the country to aggravate it further. I really want to know what CB thinks about this state of affairs. America has self inflicted problems of this sort that really stick in my craw. Our Founders even were well aware of the inequities inherent in that religion, for Pete’s sake.
Way too late to be useful. We have all settled down on our own. And that, as you say, is the point of Ricochet.
Clearly you’re not a cat person. Personally, I blame whoever was in charge of vetting Basil. The Ricochet I remember never would have stooped to such disrespect for feline affection. Something precious has certainly been lost.
Claire,
You’ve said that the 10,000 refugees who’d come to the United States are well vetted. Can you substantiate that for me? I am under the (probably misguided) impression that the exact individuals included in that number are not yet identified. That it’s simply a number.
Am I wrong? I mean I must be.
Claire, please cheer up, and don’t leave us …
We were Americans to the core ten years ago and we still are today, despite the efforts of the toxic left.
I remember the mood of the country in the late seventies, and it was worse than it is today. Everyone thought the American dream was over, and that nobody cared. We had lost a war and gone through a period of weak and stupid leadership. The Soviet Union was on the march and seemed unstoppable.
Losing wars, and tolerating weak and stupid leadership can make people cranky and risk averse. Then as now.
Here at Ricochet, we’re smart and cranky, and that makes it even worse. :-)
You’re a positive influence on Ricochet, you’re making good points and people are rooting for you. Hope you stick around.
I just want to agree with all those who are saying nice things to Claire :) I totally disagree with her on this issue, but have great respect for her. I have also had dark moments when I felt like I could no longer call myself a conservative, but I always get over it. Cheer up, Claire, it will be ok :)
Courtesy of Pseud, this is about the degree of caution that I expect from President Obama and the American officials who process our refugees and immigrants.
As many Ricochetti can attest from first-hand experience, our officials are more serious about vetting people who least match common terrorist profiles. Syrians Muslims (as opposed to Syrian Christians) will probably receive the same quick pass that Mexican illegals get.
But we are, already, in fact, like Belgium.
This isn’t about a lack of confidence. Its just that the egalitarian worldview over the past 20 years has been demonstrated to be completely intellectually, morally, ethically, and philosophically bankrupt. The conceits can no longer be maintained.
This is the driving force behind all current political and social movements everywhere in the west. The post war consensus, and apologies to the weekly standard, never existed. It is better described as the post war toleration. It just wasn’t worth fighting about. Now it is.
Something new is being worked out. Its going to be a bumpy ride.
I don’t agree, and the reason is, intermarriage. Yes, latinos have a different culture, but 20 or 100 years from now, large numbers of them will have intermarried with Wasps, Southerners, Boston Irish,etc…As long as we keep marrying each other, we are unlikely to become balkanized. The main problem with Muslim immigrants is that too many of them think that jihad against America is sometimes justified. The next biggest problem is that they are extremely unlikely to intermarry, and there is no reason to believe that they will ever change in that respect. And they don’t need to be relatively popular the way the Irish are to transform America. If America has even a small Muslim population of 5% or 10% who have no interest in assimilating, America will be transformed in a way that no other immigrant group ever transformed it.
I’m sorry. I wasn’t very clear.
I just meant that in the United States, a fatwa against someone who said something against Mohammed would be illegal, would it not?
Well, actually, perhaps I’m wrong. The hate speech laws are not at all predictable and go against everything I believe in.
I dunno. Maybe our Constitution is not strong enough to defend us against Islam. There was the poor guy who ended in up jail because of some movie he made that Hillary said was responsible for the attack on Benghazi.
So the Muslims will be allowed to speak, but we will not, I guess.
My mind is full of great things America has done–the money it raised overnight for the tsunami victims, the times we’ve come together to rebuild places struck by natural disasters like tornadoes, the Marshall Plan after World War II, Hoover’s feeding Europe after World War I . . .
I’d like to think we are still the great nation that Claire described. But I am torn.
Which is one of the reasons I read Ricochet. My mind is not made up about the refugee situation. And I greatly value Claire’s opinion.
The woman who drew the Everybody Draw Mohammad cartoon is in hiding after the FBI essentially said they couldn’t protect her.
America is still great, as is her people, but she’s losing the war for her soul. People think the assumptions of 10, 30, 50 years ago are still valid and form their magnanimous and wonderful opinions accordingly; except they’re not.
“The grandeur that was Greece and the Glory that was Rome”,
and,
“[Ill-appreciated], our [glory melts] away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!”
Thanks for the update. Sickens me to no end.