You should know this by now because you're told it often enough: Republicans are the party of individualism, Democrats the party of collectivism and statism. Yet it should be obvious, whatever you think about the U.S. taking in refugees from Syria, that the Democrats, represented by the Obama administration, are taking the individualist position by resisting demands, amplified after last Friday's attacks on Paris, to refuse Syrians entirely, or to allow only Christians while rejecting Muslims. In this case, the individualist position is "We mustn't assume that every Syrian refugee is an undercover terrorist, and we shouldn't allow the majority to suffer because some might be terrorists." Why don't the Republicans recognize this? Rather than jump to the conclusion, "They've never been true individualists, but only tribal bigots," let's recognize that, as always, there are two kinds of individualism in conflict in American politics, rather than a battle between individualism and collectivism. Call it a conflict between "individual liberty" and "human rights." One side is concerned mainly with removing limits on what individuals can accomplish or how much they can accumulate. They want to make sure the individual can be all he can be. The other side is concerned simply with making sure individuals stay alive as long as they can and suffer as little as possible. This side appears collectivist to the other side because their commitment to everyone's survival implicitly limits what any individual can earn in a competitive world. That commitment to what may look like mere survival may appear contemptible from the "individual liberty" standpoint. How can the "human rights" view be individualist if it puts individuals in a state of dependency on the state, as the Syrian refugees are believed likely to become? The answer is that the "human rights" view doesn't equate individualism with autonomy in the same way the "individual liberty" view does. If one side implies that a life with limited autonomy is not worth living, the other rejects the implication. There's an irreducibly hedonist element to the "human rights" position in its desire to minimize suffering and want that can be seen in the readiness to take in refugees, while the "individual liberty" stance is more existential, for want of a better word, in its concern for autonomy and, perhaps more crucially, its contempt for life as an end unto itself. That accounts for the indifference of avowed individualists to the plight of refugees, but what of the distrust? It may have a similar root. While "human rights" presumes that each and every individual person is an end unto itself and thus automatically entitled to respect and protection, and further presumes that each person is innocent until proven guilty, "individual liberty" sees individuals as something people become by choosing autonomy (or "personal responsibility"), and may not recognize individuals until they distinguish themselves from the rabble whose mere existence is of no concern to them or, worse, a burden they prefer not to carry. "Human rights" sees a mass of people whose self-evident needs are self-evidently compelling, while "individual liberty" reserves the right to ignore them or, if necessary, repel them.
None of the above is meant to sway anyone to one side or the other in the refugee debate. Some people may have reasons to reject refugees, and others reasons to demand unconditional acceptance of them, without reference to the continuum of individualism. That still leaves us with the seeming paradox we started with: those who most loudly avow themselves individualists refuse to recognize refugees as individuals, while those alleged to despise individualism seem more inclined to treat refugees as individuals rather than an undifferentiated "other" or "enemy." Recognizing this probably shouldn't decide one's position on taking in refugees, but it's worth remembering the next time some people boast of their belief in the individual and individualism, should you wish to ask who the real individualists are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
There's no need to analyze so deeply. Look at 9/11. Look at Paris. Can YOU look at any individual muslim and say with 100% certainty that THAT particular muslim isn't a terrorist, doesn't know any terrorists, isn't aiding, financing or recruiting terrorists? No. The terrorists in Paris were living in the area. There is NO way that other muslims were unaware of who they were, of what they were up to and they did nothing. The sad fact is that although not all muslims support terrorism, there is NO way to know for certain whether any particular muslim is worth the risk. Since MY life is on the line, I say "FUCK NO!!!"
Just as I feel no one can be trusted to own a gun due to the escalation of gun violence in this country, so too do I feel no muslim can be trusted. You have the right to risk your own life doing whatever suits your fancy, but you have no right to risk the lives of those around you. There are those who feel that we, as human beings, have an obligation to care for our fellow man and take the refugees in. But as Americans, we should be under no LEGAL obligation to do so, furthermore, as a nation whose government is supposedly representative of the will of the people, then this issue should be taken up by a public vote and the government should be obliged to obey the will of the people. I'm willing to bet the "people" agree with me in this case.
But let's also look at the reasonable side. Unemployment is still very high. The economy is still at a low. Bringing tens of millions of refugees here when we can barely take care of our own people who, being born here, should be seen as having more of a claim to that which is provided by American taxpayers than some refugee who is NOT here out of choice, because he/she wants to be an American. Allowing these people in, at this time, will ONLY add to the resentment too many Americans feel already. You will only increase the violence, the poverty and the hatred in this country by forcing more unwanted, unregulated refugees down our throats.
What I was analyzing "so deeply" was the seeming inconsistency in Republican refusal to treat Syrian refugees as individuals when they're such strong believers in individualism over collectivism. Such people shouldn't believe in collective guilt or responsibility -- they howl the loudest when blacks talk about reparations, for instance -- yet here we are. If you oppose accepting the refugees and are neither a Republican or an individualist, I agree that there's less to analyze.
Speaking for myself, the top priorities ought to be: global intervention against the IS by UN mandate --I don't see anyone on the Security Council vetoing it and at worst China might find reason to abstain. Wipe out the IS ground army as soon as possible. Guarantee Russia their naval base regardless of who rules Syria but also give Assad a breathing space for reconciliation. Force Sunnis and Shiites (i.e. Saudis and Iranians) to the bargaining table regarding Yemen as well as Iraq and Syria. In short, address the causes of Muslim vs. Muslim violence that have inflated IS capacity for Muslim vs. infidel violence and we should make the region safer for Muslims and the rest of the world safer for the rest of us. With such a strategy in place, any hosting of refugees anywhere should be temporary and restricted geographically. Applications for permanent residency can be made, but each country has the right to set its own terms, consistent with their constitutions or charters.
I'd still rather simply avoid any problems on U.S. soil by refusing admittance to any more refugees than we've already taken in. And we should encourage the rest of Europe, until ISIS and all like threats have been quelled, to keep their muslim populations under strict control - whatever the means necessary.
Quite frankly, I'd much rather simply eradicate Islam and tear out its roots. One less superstition ruling mankind can only be a good thing. Sometimes to save the body, you must lop off a limb.
Insofar as "the seeming inconsistency in Republican refusal to treat Syrian refugees as individuals when they're such strong believers in individualism over collectivism." That shouldn't even need to be remarked on. It's very obviously part and parcel of the entire conservative mindset. They treat EVERY "group" that way, whether the group in question is based on sexual identity, preferred superstition, skin color, etc. To simplify it, "I is us, but you is them."
As far as individualism is concerned, we are all individuals, whether we like it or not. Nothing we do makes us more individual or less individual than anyone else. We all have a unique genetic code, unique fingerprints, unique retina prints, etc. Republican/conservative/right-wing is no less a "collectivism" than socialist/liberal/left-wing. Anyone who refuses to accept that is simply too stupid to be worth conversing with.
What concerns me is this right-wing mentality that turns everything into a competition. As if everything is a "team" and all that is important is that "my team wins and beats your team." In the long term, this mentality serves no useful purpose. Anyone who takes 5 minutes to consider will come to the conclusion that, objectively, cooperation will net more than competition. A group cooperating towards a goal will be more likely to achieve that goal than pitting everyone against everyone to decide on a "winner".
As far as I can tell, competition is a subconscious mechanism from our monkey ancestors. An instinct towards evolution's "survival of the fittest". As reasoning beings, we have the ability, the prerogative, the responsibility to control our species evolution. Both biologically and socially, for the ultimate benefit and enrichment of the entire species.
7:43. I think the competitiveness you write about continues to evolve. In 21st century America, for instance, I think a lot of people would justify competition over cooperation less on the basis of their desire to compete (though that's definitely still there) than on a suspicion that cooperation only means that some people get to freeload while others do all the work. In other words, only competition enforces the principle of personal responsibility by requiring everyone to pull his or her own weight. A pretty neat rationalization that evades the point of cooperation, which is just as you say.
And that thought process only proves to me how stupid such people are. I have never met a socialist who believed that anyone should be allowed to sit on their ass and freeload. I see plenty of capitalists who do just that. Live their entire lives off of an inheritance they did little to earn, (other than being born).
Post a Comment