Political Definitions: Conservative, Liberal, and Libertarian

Liberalism, Conservatism, and Statism

So-called “Liberalism” is in the very air we breathe; it permeates the air with the media, newspapers, TV, the entertainment industry, movies, and music. Schoolchildren are imbued with the air of liberalism from their first day of school right through to their graduation from colleges and universities. Unless one is brought up in a deliberately conservative Christian environment, it is the worldview we grow up with. But what is often forgotten is that liberalism has a history; a history marked by a dramatic change in the meaning of liberalism and how it is defined. Prior to the Progressive era of the early twentieth century, liberalism in America connoted belief in liberty and limited government, the Rule of Law in which equality before the law was a core principle but equality of condition was not because only by government intervention and redistribution of wealth could the latter be achieved, at the cost of economic freedom. Political liberalism first arose out of the English “Rule of Law” tradition of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It was this tradition that was transplanted to the American colonies, and eventually gave birth to constitutional government in America. Hayek wrote that the rule of law is “sometimes confused with the requirement of mere legality in all government action”:

The rule of law . . . presupposes complete legality, but this is not enough: if a law gave the government unlimited power to act as it pleased, all its actions would be legal, but it would certainly not be under the rule of law. (The Constitution of Liberty, 1959, p. 205)

Unlike the French tradition of 1789, the Anglo-Saxon tradition did not trust absolute power in the hands of a legislature (as in majoritarian democracy), and thus set up a system of judicial review, to limit legislative power (Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty). Thus, liberty or freedom was the dominant abstract principal, whereas with the ascension of the Progressive movement, liberalism was redefined to include and even to prefer, the ideas of socialism and Marxism, so that equality became the guiding light of the new liberalism. As the well known American historian, Will Durant, has commented (I think he took the notion from Tocqueville), freedom and equality, taken to their logical extremes, are contradictory.

In Suicide of the West (1964), James Burnham described how classical liberalism, with its belief in individual liberty, had been transformed (or morphed) into modern liberalism, with its primary principle of egalitarian social justice (and hence influenced by Marxism and other socialist doctrines):

This difference in human character type corresponds to a theoretical conflict within the ideology of modern liberalism: the conflict between the principles of free speech and the other individual freedoms on the one hand, and the principle of egalitarian social justice on the other. Essentially, it is a conflict between individualism and regimentation: the individualism that the liberal ideology derives from its past and the regimentation it has absorbed in the present. This conflict is real, and can be hidden but not solved by discussion, negotiation and compromise. It is a fact that liberalism’s inherited principles correspond to individualism, and a highly atomistic individualism at that. It is equally a fact that the Welfare State and plebiscitary democracy mean a good deal and an increasing deal of regimentation. One or the other must give way; and, on the evidence of the past generation, there is little doubt which is the tottering horn of that particular dilemma. (p. 171)

In the 1960s, the New Left established an even closer allegiance to Marxism, with the Civil Rights movement, the anti-War movement, radical feminism, the counter-culture, with an ideological spectrum that spanned the distance between Progressivism on one end, to Maoism on the other. The political correctness movement also appeared on the scene at American colleges in the 1960s, as campus radicals argued which Marxist ideology was the most politically correct. According to Wikipedia, the term can be traced back to Mao’s Little Red Book. What many, perhaps most, Americans are unaware of, is that the Conservative movement did not exist prior to the 1950s and did not really become a political force until the 1960s, with the Goldwater for President Campaign. Nixon was elected for a second term in 1972, largely as a reaction to the 1960s New Left and counter-cultural movements, which supported McGovern. With the founding of the Moral Majority in 1979, the New Right came to the fore as a political force, helping to elect Reagan in 1980. But throughout the Progressive era, World War II and the early post-War era, there really was no Conservative movement. There were of course, libertarian and conservative thinkers, and a few conservative politicians, such as Robert Taft, but there was no large-scale Conservative Movement.

Conservative Libertarianism

America was founded as a noble experiment. Once independent of Great Britain, we had no monarchy, no titled aristocracy. We were to be a “government of laws, not of men.” Liberalism, as stated above in its original meaning, was the ideology of the republic. The orthodox way of presenting the political spectrum is based on the French model, originating in the Estates General which seated from right to left, First Estate (clergy), Second Estate (nobility), Third Estate (bourgeoisie and commoners). That arrangement eventually became obsolete, but in Europe, monarchists and the Church came to represent the right wing whereas the capitalist bourgeoisie became the left wing, espousing liberal ideals. Eventually, with the advent of the socialist movement in the nineteenth century, the proletariat became associated with the left and the liberals moved to the right. The Libertarian Party has argued that this old world political spectrum no longer applies to the modern world, that in fact Hitler and Stalin had more in common than not (for example, the Hitler-Stalin Pact), and shouldn’t be on opposite sides of the spectrum. For the libertarians, the political spectrum should run from the government with the most individual liberty, on one end, to the most state control at the other. A liberal republic with limited government would be at one extreme, and totalitarianism would be at the other extreme. (While some might argue that anarchy should be at the extreme end of complete liberty, I would argue that without the Rule of Law, it would be survival of the fittest, and the thug with the mightiest gang would prevail. For those who would argue that that is our current system, I suggest they move to a country were such conditions actually prevail, such as Somalia, and report back.) So my argument would run thus: since we had no tradition of monarchy and America was founded as a liberal republic, to be a conservative in America is to conserve that tradition of liberalism. Conservatives in America are, for the most part, classical liberals. New “Liberals,” on the other hand, tend to embrace various forms of statism, from social democracy, to democratic socialism, to political correctness and Marxism.

As a result of confusion around the term “liberal,” classical liberals in the modern age have adopted the identity of libertarian. There are, indeed, differences between libertarians and conservatives, in particular, libertarians tend to be more socially liberal and less religious. But both groups do share similar roots. For example, Gary North, has argued in an article entitled “Robert Nisbet on Conservatism” (LewRockwell.com, April 1, 2005) that both the conservative, Robert Nisbet and the classical liberal, F. A. Hayek had roots in the Whiggism of Edmund Burke, generally considered to be the father of conservatism. Although Hayek includes an essay entitled

"Why I am Not a Conservative?" in his Constitution of Liberty (1959), he concludes that he would rather be called a Whig, after Burke. Hayek was a classical liberal, but so was Burke (he was a Whig, after all, and not a Tory). Burke was also an admirer of Adam Smith, generally considered the father of free market capitalism. So there are many points at which conservatism and libertarianism (or at least the classical liberal version of it) converge, and one could argue that most American Conservatives are actually classical liberals, that being our tradition going back to the Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, the label "liberal" has been polluted by the Progressives and socialists, who have re-defined it to mean something entirely different. While New “liberals” are constantly accusing conservatives of Orwellian Newspeak, changing the meaning of the political term “liberal” from one who believes in the Rule of Law, limited government, and economic liberty to one who believes in unlimited state power to micromanage the economy, redistribute wealth, and privilege certain classes of people before the law to the detriment of others, is a classic case of Orwellian Newspeak known as doublethink. And yet, the redefinition of liberal is seldom challenged.

What the conservative brings to the table (in addition to the above), a respect for tradition, can peaceably coexist with Hayek’s classical liberalism because traditions due tend to evolve naturally like Hayek’s “spontaneous order.” Traditions evolve through trial and error, and they continue to exist because, from a pragmatic perspective, they work (even though they may be in many ways irrational). Robert Nisbet in his Quest for Community (1953) has emphasized the importance of intermediate (local) associations, such as families, churches, guilds, and community groups as a necessary buffer between the individual citizen and the absolute power of the State. This notion also came from Tocqueville, who was a French classical liberal theorist if we are to venture a political categorization, and it is also a conservative position. It is also perfectly consistent with libertarianism (although not often emphasized) because by creating a buffer between the individual and the state, freedom is furthered. Unfortunately, many Enlightenment and modern liberals have actually looked askance at intermediate associations such as religious organizations because, particularly during the Enlightenment, such associations were considered to be enslavers of mankind, whereas the modern liberal state would become the guarantor of liberty (see Voltaire, for example). Remember that in the eighteenth century, the Church and the aristocracy were on the right in Europe, in opposition to the liberal bourgeois class that was on the left. It should have become abundantly clear, however, with Twentieth Century totalitarianism that the State could not be trusted to be the sole guarantor of liberty.

Two Types of Rationality

Another way to distinguish the classical liberal from the new statist “liberal” has to do with their stance towards rationality. As both the conservative philosopher Michael Oakeshott (Rationalism in Politics, 1962) and the economist Friedrich Hayek have stressed, the left tends to rationalize economic and political systems to a degree that is incompatible with human freedom. (It should be mentioned that Oakeshott and Hayek had their differences, as Oakeshott rejected all forms of rationalism while Hayek did not. As Oakeshott said of Hayek’s Road to Serfdom: “A plan to resist all planning may be better than its opposite, but it belongs to the same style of politics” Ibid., p. 26). Hayek, on the other hand, believed that there were different types of rationality, some more conducive to freedom than others. North noted that “Hayek argued in his 1952 book, The Counter-Revolution of Science, that there are two kinds of social rationalism: "constructivist" rationalism, or top-down rationalism, and the rationalism of the free market, a bottom-up rationalism.” I think this gets to the difference between the Rationalist and the believer in reason as a necessary tool of human intelligence. The “constructivist” Rationalist always believes that he or she can design the perfect socio-political and economic system to order all human behavior. This is what the utopian socialist or Marxist, or the Jacobins of the French Revolution believed. Hayek wrote: “Those who believe that all useful institutions are deliberate contrivances and who cannot conceive of anything serving a human purpose that has not been consciously designed are almost of necessity enemies of human freedom. For them freedom means chaos” (The Constitution of Liberty, p. 61). As Austrian economists, such as Hayek and Ludwig von Mises demonstrated, you cannot perfectly plan an economy because there are too many variables. No central planner can have perfect and complete information required to manage a whole economy. The Soviet Union always produced too much of what people didn’t want and too little of what they did because they had no way of pricing goods according to market demand. It was a command or top down economy. Surplus food often rotted on trains and eventually the system broke down (see The Economist, “A Survey of Perestroika,” April 28, 1990). An old Soviet quote was, “They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.” Hayek, on the other hand advocated “spontaneous order,” an order that naturally evolved over time through the trial and error of human experience, often from the bottom up. I think a similar logic applies to social and political arrangements. When government thinks it can legislate or order by judicial fiat such arrangements, individual freedom is lost.

The anti-Maginot mentality

In contemporary history books, the Maginot Line, the series of fortifications build by the French Army in the 1930s to repel a German invasion, symbolises the folly of defensive thinking.

The standard narrative is that the backward-looking French chose a static means of defending themselves from attack and so succumbed to a simple bypassing maneuver by the more mobile and progressively-minded Germans.

This idea that defensive tactics are impractical and outdated ties in nicely with contemporary, progressive thinking in general.

Trying to contain a potential pandemic is costly and unrealistic. Building a wall to stop illegal immigration isn't a viable option. Containing an unpleasant dictator without regime change won't work. Joining a superstate is the best way to unsure peace. Turning away foreign labour will destroy a country's economy.

The way to deal with todays' international problems is simply accept them, reinterpret them as positives, or go on the attack. Only a backward-thinking, WWI-era reactionary would think problems can be tackled through defensive measures.

Given the dominance of anti-defensive thinking in the modern West, perhaps we should consider how stupid that supposed showcase of defensive thinking, the Maginot Line, actually was.

Certainly the Maginot Line strategy was a questionable one, and the failure to built defenses in the Ardenne sector was a foolish oversight. However, the most foolish aspect of the Maginot Line strategy wasn't so much the building of the line itself, which made reasonable sense, but the failure of the French to follow their defensive strategy to its logical conclusion.

Contrary to popular belief, the French did not originally intend to leave the border with Belgium undefended. The Maginot Line was intended to link up with a series of Belgium defenses to provide a defensive line running all the way to the coast.

In the event of the line being breached, the French had built up a large defensive Army, well-equipped with heavy tanks and artillery, which they believed was capable on taking on a German army with more mobile, but lightly-armoured tanks.

In 1936 though, the Belgians declared neutrality, which seriously comprimised the original strategy. Taking advantage of the division between France and Belgium, the Germans launched an attack in May 1940 which pierced the unsupported Belgium defensive line and enabled the Germans Army to roll on towards France.

Meanwhile instead of leaving Belgium to its fate, the French rashly decided to advance into Belgium with their large, lumbering, defensive Army, leaving a gaping hole in their rear. The Germans then launched a second attack through the Ardenne sector, leaving the over-stretched French cut-off from their supply lines and badly exposed to German air attack.

The logical response from the French, would have been to dig in, leave Belgium to its fate and reinforce the Ardenne sector. This would have narrowed the front and allowed them to engage the Germans using familiar defensive tactics on ground of their own choosing. In 1944, the Germans themselves used such tactics against the Allies, with the hedgerow country of Northern France proving ideal terrain for mechanised defensive warfare using heavy tanks and artillery.

The folly of the French decision to advance into Belgium was highlighted by the fact that they fought much better in the later stages of the campaign, when they were able to use their heavy tanks and guns defensively in prepared ambush situations. However, by this stage it was too late as most of their forces had already been overwhelmed in the German blitzrieg through the Low Countries.

Also forgotten by the critics of the Maginot Line, is that the Germans couldn't have launched their daring attack through the Ardenne without their own defensive line, the Seigfried Line, which protected them from a French counterattack to the south.

Given the Germans superiority in air power, organisation and morale, it's likely that the French would probably still have lost eventually, but by succumbing so easily, they gave Hitler a popular mandate for the invasion of Russia, a decision that lead to the unnecessary deaths of millions of people.

The Germans in 1940 weren't too keen on another costly war with a major power but, like most people, were perfectly willing to go to war for an easy victory against a long-time adversary.

The fallout from Hitler's fateful decision to invade Russia of course still haunts us today, through the hysterical anti-nationalism it's helped to engender among the modern liberal left.

Rather than being an example of the superiority of progressive thinking, the failure of the Maginot Line in 1940 symbolises the importance of old-fashioned common sense and prudence - if in doubt, then stick with tactics that you already know.

Ethics and liberal values

"Being smart is cooler than anything in the world" said Michelle Obama to a group of London secondary school children this week.

Well, I'm sure this was a well intentioned statement, but I don't think it was a particularly smart one.

Intelligence is not something children have much control over, especially by the time they reach adolescence.

Something children have somewhat more control over, is their actions. Instead of telling kids to be smart, and therefore setting most of them up for a life of disappointment, why not just tell them to try to be good.

In an age of rising crime, corruption and corporate greed, surely one of the best things influential public figures can do is to promote traditional standards of moral behaviour, since being a decent person is something that students of all levels of academic ability are potentially capable of.

Unfortunately though, high moral standards don't seem to be considered particularly important to many of today's liberal elites.

Provided someone adheres to the prevailing ideology of tolerance and diversity then traditional values like honesty, integrity, courage and hard work aren't considered that important, or if they are, they' ve been so watered down as to be virtually meaningless.

The modern liberal definition of courage, for example, has now been widened to include any action in which someone endures something moderately unpleasant or mildly dangerous. Previously the word courage was reserved for instances in which someone risked their own life to selflessly help others.

Mark Richardson addresses the conflict between liberal ideology and traditional morality in a recent post on his Oz Conservative blog.

Some thoughts on Muslim assimilation

It's assumed by most western liberals that it's only fundamentalist Muslims who lash out at western culture or get angry about criticism of Islam, and that mainstream Muslims are fine with cartoons of Allah or women in short skirts.

Both right and left liberals believe that Muslims can be successfully assimilated into western culture and that this is the best way of protecting western society from Muslim militancy.

The two sides only differ in approach.

Left liberals pursue a softly-softly diplomatic strategy which seeks to appease older Muslims through a pro-Muslim foreign policy while slowing enticing young Muslims into western liberal ways through the power of consumerism and liberal education. They believe that if right liberal "hot-heads" like Dutchman Geert Wilders can be shut up then eventually the fundamentalist Muslims will mellow out and turn into semi-western moderates who'll respect women and homosexuals and support western values like freedom of speech.

Conversely, right liberals want a more overt approach which forces Muslims to swear allegiance to western values, and puts pressure on nationalistic Islamic regimes such as Iran and Libya to desist from anti-western policies.

However, there doesn't seem to be much evidence to support the idea that "moderate" Muslims are a lot more tolerant of western values than fundamentalists, so moderating fundamentalist Muslims probably won't turn them pro-western liberals

For a long time in the West we've had fundamentalist Christian minorities, like the Brethren and Mormons that are clearly more tolerant of mainstream western values than many so-called moderate Muslims.

If western religious fundamentalists acted the same way Muslim fundamentalists did, we'd see Mennonites burning cars in Washington and Exclusive Brethren burning effigies of liberal leaders in Canberra and Wellington.

Furthermore, as Samuel Huntington pointed out, the Iranian Muslims seen on television burning effigies of Salmon Rushdie or US presidents aren't necessarily backward, fundamentalist Muslims - many are educated, moderate Muslims who don't wish to live alongside western liberalism, but want to replace it with a modern, internationalist Islam.

While modern, "moderate" Islam may be less extreme than the Islamic fundamentalism of radical traditionalists like the Taleban, it's still strongly anti-Western. Islamic moderates may be more progressive and egalitarian than fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Sudan, but they still support religious interference in politics, commerce, law and scientific research and have little respect for western notions of free speech (if they did they wouldn't be so touchy about a few cartoons in a Danish newspaper).

The most worrying aspect of modern Islam though, isn't so much it's cultural incompatibility with western values as its aggressive internationalism.

Echoing the dangerous "grow or die'" ideology of radical-liberal communism, modern Islam seeks to spread itself around the globe, undermine long established cultures and knock over rival ideologies.

If moderate Muslims were particularists, with little interest in spreading Islamic views to non-Islamic countries, than you wouldn't see so many Muslims around the globe protesting about 'anti-Islamic' events in far-off countries like Israel and Denmark. Since the native Danes for example, aren't Muslims, they have no obligation to respect Allah in there own country. Only if Danes travel to Muslim countries and insult Allah do Muslims have a right to complain.

Modern liberalism is also an aggressive, internationalist ideology and there's a danger that further liberal attempts to integrate Muslims into western society will only make Muslims more globalist and therefore more determined to undermine their host nations and network with Muslims in other countries to oppose western interests.

As a globalist ideology Islam also has the potential to be much more dangerous than communism, since communism was a secular ideology that fell out of favour when it was unable to provide inspiring real-world examples of its over-hyped potential.

Rather than ambitiously attempting to assimilate Muslims in a liberal manner, some European New Right thinkers believe Muslim immigrants should actually be supported in their efforts to remain culturally distinct. In their view, Muslims should be encouraged to built their own mosques, live in distinct areas if they chose to, set up there own schools and follow their own customs where practical.

That way the host populace doesn't need to seriously compromise it's own culture to appease the Muslims, and the Muslims immigrants are taught to appreciate the thinking behind particularist polices such as immigration restrictionism.

Since liberalism also preaches equality and materialism, and reduces traditional religion to a mere lifestyle accessory, semi-westernised immigrants who are unable to compete economically are likely to blame their hosts for their NAM (non-economically assimilated minority) status and seek solace in a globalist ideology/religion. Conversely, immigrants who are able to remain culturally distinct will be less inclined to directly compare themselves with their hosts in narrowly material terms and so will have less reason to want to undermine the host culture.

Instead of seeing a war between liberalism and Islam, the European New Right sees a war between particularism and globalism in which modern Islam and post-war western liberalism are both threats that need to be contained by strengthening sovereign states and opposing globalist NGOs.

There are however a couple of areas where it is difficult to argue with the assertive assimilation approach of right liberals like Wilders. These are language and freedom of speech.

Without freedom of speech particularists will not be able to get there message across, and there will be no way to contain either Islam or liberalism's excesses.

If Muslims living in western countries find such free speech offensive then too bad.

Similarly, all immigrants, Muslim or otherwise, should have to learn to speak the language of their host nation. It simply isn't possible for a modern nation to function if a significant percentage of the population is unable to speech the dominant language.

People who can't speak English in English-Speaking countries for example, can't understand the law and culture of the country in which they live, and can only work in a limited range of jobs within there own ethnic clique. This makes them a liability to both themselves and their host country.

The noisy fruits of liberalism

While boy racers are a minor nuisance throughout the developed world, they've started reaching plague proportions in some of New Zealand's provincial cities.

Recently a documentary was shown on German T.V, which revealed the extent of the boy racer problem in Christchurch, much to the annoyance of the local tourist industry that portrays the moderately sized city as a relaxing, "English" influenced lifestyle destination (the inner city's English appearance is debatable, given that it's rapidly being overtaken by Asian noodles bars, junk shops and 7-11s, but that's another story).

Christchurch businesses have been complaining about the incessant late night noise of young bogans (Australasian for chavs) in the inner suburbs for some years now, and the problem doesn't seem to be getting any better.

This sharp rise in "white trash" behaviour is troubling for a country which has traditionally regarded itself as more civilised and understated than the U.S or Australia.

Echoing the planned settlement vision of Edward Gibbon Wakefield, who failed to take into account the then undiscovered reality of regression to the mean, former NZ Prime Minister Rob Muldoon famously stated that when New Zealanders immigrated to Australia they raised the IQ level on both sides of the Tasman.

Given the genetic level-playing field between Aussie and Kiwi Caucasian youth, the sharp rise in boy racer culture in NZ must be due to social or economic differences (gosh, I'm beginning to sound like a socialist here!)

The most obvious difference is the easy availability of imported second-hand Japanese cars in New Zealand, which the Australian's restrict to protect their domestic car industry. Naturally with so many dirt cheap 'rice rockets' on the market, the streets are filled with the sound of ill-tuned rotary engines, over-blown exhausts and bowel-dropping car stereos.

Helping this proto- Mad Max behaviour is liberal policing - in particular, the modern police preference for revenue gathering over punishment.

A straightforward way of containing these young hoons, would be to take their cars off them and put them in a crusher. Not only would this take a lot of old sports cars off the streets, but, coupled with proposed restrictions on the age on Japanese imports, would increase the cost of old high performance cars so fewer boy racers could afford them.

Unfortunately, such a straight forward and illiberal approach is frowned upon - why deprive boy racers of their cars when we can fine them instead, thus providing more jobs for police, lawyers and car dealers. Subsequently, our streets (and court rooms) are filled with boy racers that everyone complains about, but no one really wants to deal with.

Mixed messages about self-determination

Over at the Oz Conservative blog Mark Richardson points out the left liberal double standard over support for the Tibetan independence movement.

In a particularly poignant passage, he highlights how left liberals should view the riots in Tibet, if they are going to be logically consistent:

"Our imaginary liberal Professor: "Xenophobic Tibetans have erupted in a violent display of bigotry and racism, motivated by fear and hatred of the other. They claim to be defending their culture, but what is Tibetan culture anyway? The Tibetans want to turn the clock back to the grey past, before diversity first brought colour to their country."

If left-liberals really want to be consisitent in supporting self-determination for different ethnic groups, then logically, they should extent scuh support to European groups such as White Britons. However, you obviously don't see many left-liberals voicing support for the British National Party, for example.

Here in New Zealand, PM Helen Clarke has taken a softly softly approach over the issue. When the Dalai Lama visited NZ, she was only willing to meet him in an airport waiting longue, and so far has kept quiet about the recent suppression of Tibetan protesters by the Chinese military.

The general consensus in the media is that the government is being diplomatic about the issue so as not to endanger its recently signed free trade deal with the People's Republic. On talk radio, Radio Live commentator Willie Jackson made a good argument that it's reasonable for the government to put national economic issues first, but that it's double standards in foreign affairs can be seen in its softly softly approach with China and its unnecessarily heavy-handed dealings with the government of Fiji.

What I didn't hear mentioned on the radio was any reference to Labour diplomatic relations with the US and the issue of trade. Since 1984, successive Labour government's have been perfectly willing to jeopardise a potential trade deal with the US to satisfy the party's anti-nuclear stance, yet Helen Clarke now appears to be quite willing to grease up to China in the name of economic pragmatism.

Another case of western cultural self-loathing?

A few thoughts on western multiculturalism

With the country having a bit of slow news week, I thought I might give my two cents worth on the modern western penchant for multiculturalism.

While a number of European conservatives, such as Fjordman, have argued that western enthusiasm for multiculturalism is based on secularized Christian ideas of universal compassion and support for the underdog, few seem to consider the possibility that support for multiculturalism may be based on overconfidence due to early success, rather than ideology.

The Christianity theory assumes ideology is the driving factor behind multiculturalism, rather than actual events and conditions experienced by westerners, which in my view is putting too much emphasis on ideas at the expense of concrete factors like history and evolution.

Ideology, such as liberal autonomy theory, is very influential, but it is also heavily influenced by material and historical factors, which are ultimately the main influences on human behaviour. The dogmatically ideological Soviet Union collapsed in part, because it's leaders could not point to successful working examples of Marxist states which would help lend empirical support to their ideological claims (intellectuals often forget that most people are more impressed by concrete achievement that elegant rational argument).

Looking at the racial and cultural history of Continental Europe, it's noticeable that while Europeans are essentially all of the same race, they are made up of numerous sub-races that to a certain extent, look and act quite differently.

Thanks to the Continent's varied topography and wide range of climates, there is considerable variety in the builds, appearances and temperaments of the various people's of Europe. Added to this is the fact that Europe has developed a large number of distinctive cultures, each with its own language. But despite all this potentially divisive diversity, the continent has become, to a certain extent, a showpiece for the potential of liberal multiculturalism.

Over the last 500 years Europe may have had its fair share of bloody wars, and even the occasional genocide, but overall, the benefits of inter-cultural competition and rivalry have played a vital part in helping Europe overtake the less dynamic civilisations of China and India, and lay the template for North American growth and development. Intense competition between states and city states has meant European countries have had to maximise their national advantages, such as French flair and German efficiency, and this in turn has speeded up the economic and cultural development of the continent as a whole.

Arguably this growth-through-competition experience has helped give rise to the liberal idea that the tension in ethnic diversity provides stimulus for economic and cultural development. Meanwhile on the other side of the Atlantic, America is, in many respects, what the contemporary EU wants to be, a large pan- European superstate with enormous economies-of-scale advantages, and a political system that is a greatest hits package of European enlightenment thinking.

Add to the mix Australia, and you suddenly have three successful examples of pan-European cultures operating on a continental scale.

However, while modern Europe, North America, and Australasia are now successful pan-European continents, they are still mono-continental cultural entities, and this is what contemporary multiculturalism fails to take into account.

Buoyed up by their success in developing not one, but three economically successful continents that have provided a model for global economic development westerners have fallen into the trap of believing that peoples from non-European backgrounds can be successfully assimilated into western countries in the same way that non-English speaking Europeans from Eastern and Southern Europe have been integrated into the United States and Australia over the last century.

Liberal diversity theory also fails to take into account that it was only after Europe was freed of non-European powers like the Mongols and the Ottoman Empire that it really begin to take-off culturally and economically - a point probably taken into account by Al-Qaeda in its scheduling of the 9-11 attack to coincide with the 12th of September 1683, the date the Ottomans were repulsed during the Battle of Vienna, which marked the high-water mark of Muslim incursions into Europe.

So far, phase one of the West's audacious multi-cultural experiment hasn't gone to badly, The immigrants from the 1950s to 1970s have, on the whole, been successfully integrated without too many difficulties, and western economies are still keeping most middle-class westerners in the material affluence to which they have become accustomed. Crime rates and economic inequality have increased, but the economies and infrastructure of most western countries have so far survived remarkably well.

The West as a civilisation may be suffering a serious crisis of confidence, but among the managerial class, multiculturalism, like deindustrialisation, is regarded as just another challenge that can be overcome by reason and creativity. Even the increasingly worrying pattern of different races voting according to ethnic interest does not seem to be raising much concern among western elites.

Meanwhile a different set of attitudes has developed in the Far East.

The relatively monocultural Chinese and Japanese civilisations, have maintained a suspicion of foreigners throughout their long histories, but at the same time have had a relatively open to many foreign ideas.

Being more concrete and pragmatic thinkers, the East Asians have felt less threatened by imported religions and philosophies than more idelogically minded westerners and this can be seen with the arrival of Buddhism and Communism in China. However, the example of communism shows that although orientals do have a penchant for imported ideas, their enthusiasm for such imports rapidly fades if the idea or ideology in question proves to be impractical. Nor are East Asians very interested in ideas like globalism and open borders, since these threaten to undermine the blood and soil foundations of their civilisation itself.

Given enough time, the West might swing against multiculturalism through ideological change bought about by intellectuals as part of the wider reaction against liberal ideology. However, the speed with which immigration and divergent reproduction rates are transforming the ethnic composition of most western countries, suggests that it's pragmatic necessity and political agitation which are most likely to lead to a swing against multiculturalism, and towards some kind of post-liberal amalgam of conservatism and nationalism.

This process is already beginning in France, Britain and the United States, where the sheer number of immigrants is putting pressure on politicians to start introducing measures to significantly curtail immigration and take account of majority opinion.

Liberalism and organisations

With traditionalist critics of liberalism such as Mark Richardson persistently pointing out that the myth of the autonomous, self-authoring individual is one of keys to understanding liberal individualism, it's worth considering whether the principles of liberalism apply to organisations and societies as well.

In the same way that liberal theory argues that individuals should be free to re-create themselves, according to their own whims and logic, liberal elites see themselves as being justified in continually changing organisations such as businesses, government departments and NGOs, according to rational criteria and liberal principles such as personal autonomy and egalitarianism.

In the 19th Century, radical-liberal theorist Karl Marx noted the "bourgeois obsession with reform," which he attributed to the logical workings of capitalism. More recently, enlightenment critics such as John Ralston Saul have pointed to the obsession western elites have with rational methodology, which they believe gives them the mandate to continually change and disrupt organisations, according to rational criteria, regardless of established customs, experience and common sense.

In Voltaire's Bastards, Saul argued that one result of the hubristic belief in rational methodology, is that managers tend to be rewarded according to adherence to methodology rather than actual results, both in the public and private sectors. Similarly, the word managerialism has entered the English language to identify arrogant psuedo-technocrats, who value generic qualifications and skills over specific expertise and practical experience.

Anti-managerialism has a growing intellectual following in Britain, thanks to the micro-management excesses of Nu Labour. One British blogger who writes quite frequently on managerialism is Chris Dillow, author of the blog Stumbling and Mumbling.

The liberal nature of organisational reform in western countries is clearly apparent when western organisations are compared with those in other developed nations, such as Japan and Korea, which do not share the West's cultural history. Despite the unprecedented economic and technological change which Japan has experienced since 1945, the structure and habits of Japanese corporations have undergone relatively little change in the last 6o odd years.

Highly successful firms such as Toyota and Sony continue to pay their senior managers modest salaries by western standards, and Japanese businesses still make many inexpensive, labour intensive products. By contrast, most western companies have long since shifted such manufacturing to the third world.

Japanese firms are also cautious of egalitarian reforms such as opening-up management positions to women graduates and fast-tracing intelligent and ambitious graduates at the expense of experienced workers. Indeed, whole sectors of the Japanese economy, such as distribution and farming, are still largely run along traditional lines.

Despite placing a high value on education, senior Japanese managers seem to put more emphasis on the importance of practical experience than their western counterparts.

In contrast to the way organisations are conservatively managed in Japan, western organisations are subject to a whirlwind of change, to which many workers are increasingly numb.

Diversity training, down-sizing, team-building exercises, political correctness, counseling, office-layout fads and incessantly changing business jargon are just some of the many questionable changes which today's western workforce is expected to put up with.

Even organisations which are thought of as bastions of tradition, such as long-established churches, are subject to a level of change which would be unheard of in most cultures. The Church of England, for example, has been under considerable pressure to accept gay and female clergy as well as significant changes to its traditional religious services.

The last 150 years have seen an enormous amount of change within western organisations, but the pace of change has intensified dramatically in the last 30-40 years, and an increasingly amount of that change has been of questionable practical benefit - which ties in with the intense degree of ideological social reform which has occurred in western society during this period.

Given that most other cultures are very weary of such intense and rapid organisation change, the western managerial class may well be setting unrealistic expectations about how much anti-traditional change is possible or disirable.

The driver education myth

Whatever the social problem, liberals always seems to believe that education is the solution.

Take road accidents for example.

According to the liberal mind set, road accidents are caused by a lack of driver knowledge or skill, and greater driver education, in the form of longer, more expensive licenses or defensive driving courses, will solve the problem.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, most accidents are not caused by unskilled drivers, but cocky skilled drivers.

In terms of driving skill, the most unskilled drivers are probably women and old people, yet statistics show that these groups are involved in the least serious accidents. Although many woman struggle to master parallel parking and using a manual gearbox, their greater maturity and sense of caution means that they are able to compensate for any weaknesses in natural ability and avoid serious accidents.

In contrast, it it naturally coordinated young males, with quick reactions, who constitute the majority of road fatalities - not because they lack driving skill, but because their youthful confidence and impulsiveness leads them to take risks that older drivers wouldn't. Only time and the punitive actions of the police can curb these natural tendencies.

Defensive driving courses might actually give them more confidence in their own ability, thus encouraging them to take even more risks on the road.

Another likely genetic factor in road accidents, is that liberal bogeyman, intelligence. In Australia and New Zealand, European settlers like to make jokes about the inexperience and nerdy dithering of East Asian drivers. However, Asian drivers probably have lower accident rates than their White counterparts. Again, since driving skill isn't a factor, the likely reason for the difference is the higher average IQ of East Asian immigrants.

To see what little impact driving knowledge has on driver behaviour, you only have to observe driver behaviour when a police car is spotted on the highway. Drivers who normally follow too close and attempt risky overtaking manoeuvres, suddenly become polite, model drivers who unwaveringly adhere to speed limits and recommended following distances.

It's also interesting that most liberals usually agree with the statement that "it isn't bad roads that cause accidents, it's bad drivers." However when questioned on an issue like gun control, most left-liberals vehemently disagree with the argument that "guns don't kill people, people do."

Given that a high proportion of fatal road accidents in New Zealand occur from head-on crashes, I would have thought that the fact that we don't have any inter-city highways with median crash barriers might have some bearing on our road accident statistics.

Unfortunately though, as the current debacle over broadband shows, New Zealand governments are more concerned with funding such things as funding for sex-change operations then in addressing unfashionable concerns like providing the country with a first world infrastructure.

Ideology and education

As someone who believes that too many people go to university these days, I was mildly pleased to hear that the University of Auckland is planning to restrict entry to all undergraduate courses for 2009 ("University Senate back plan on numbers," New Zealand Herald Dec 4, 2007).

The university says it is making the changes to cope with a shortfall of money driven by cut backs in central government funding. Hence the university is planning to limit entry for art, education, science, theology and first year law. Not sure about the science limits, but the other cut backs sound excellent.

Over the last twenty years, the value of a university degree has steadily declined, as more and more marginal students, who have neither the academic aptitude or the intellectual curiosity for university-level courses, have drifted through the system to satisfy the government’s crude targets for more "human capital" throughput.

Unfortunately, as I read on, I realised that my initial impression, that for once common sense might trump ideology, was too good to be true. Predictably, the University deputy vice-Chancellor, Professor Raewyn Dalziel, says the institution plans to establish a taskforce to increase enrolment of under-represented students:

"The special admission schemes which set aside places for Maori, Pacific, and other under-represented communities operating in facilities which already restrict entry will be expanded."

If, by "under represented communities," the University means students from low-income families, then this looks to be another kick in the face for hard-working students and parents from lower-middle class families who tend to suffer the most from affirmative action policies.

While low-income families receive generous government allowances, and upper middle class kids can usually rely on parental support, students from middle-income families are caught in the middle - too well-off to be eligible for allowances, yet not rich enough to be able to rely on significant help from their parents. Now their opportunities to cover the cost of their courses, through scholarships or other subsidies, are likely to be further limited.

As I’ve said before, only indigenous minorities have a reasonable case for preferential treatment, and even then, they too should have to accept cutbacks in quotas when others groups are having to make sacrifices.

The Liberal Peril

Christchurch's Press seems to take a perverse delight in belittling European New Zealanders in its immigration articles (or should that be advertorials?).

In a recent feature article on East Asian Immigration "Aiming for a multicultural NZ" Saturday November 17) the idea that East Asians should assimilate into the local culture is questioned on the basis that, well, European New Zealand culture is inferior:

"And what should integration mean? To put it bluntly, do we still expect Asian immigrants to turn themselves into "good sorts" if they want to be accepted - to dump several thousand years of culture and refinement and adopt a life revolving around malls, barbecues, loud cars, touch rugby and a few beers."

If this isn't cultural loathing I don't know what is - lets take the most banal aspects of European New Zealand culture and compare them with the best aspects of East Asian culture. You could easily turn this statement on its head and it would be equally valid.

"And what should integration mean? To put it bluntly, do we still expect European New Zealanders to turn themselves into cultural quislings if they want to be accepted - to dump several thousand years of Classical/Judeo-Christian culture and refinement and adopt a life revolving around overcrowded cities, monotonous menus, karaoke, Marshall arts movies and a snobbish dislike of manual labour."

The article then takes a right-liberal tack and attacks the country for failing to integrate economically with non-Western markets:

"While other small nations like Iceland, Finland and Singapore have increased their average economic "connectedness," as measured by exports and foreign investing, from 42% to 89% of gross domestic product over the past 15 years, we are the only developing country to exporting less, managing to drop back to 3 points to just 39%."

In an article about immigration these examples are totally irrelevant, since when have Iceland and Finland been bastions of multicultural capitalism?

Finland has one of the lowest rates of immigration in the developed world. Its export success is more likely to do with its monocultural corporatism than cultural diversity.

While New Zealand should perhaps learn more about Asian markets, and offer more Chinese language courses, some Asian countries could also be doing a lot more to open up their markets.

Before Ms Clarke rushes into a free trade deal with the Chinese, shouldn't she wait until China cuts back its farming subsidies and stops messing about with the Yuan?

The article also has some revealing comment from Auckland University Professor Manying Ip, who perhaps inadvertently, make a good case for avoiding a free trade deal with China:

"Ip says the rapid rise in mainland Chinese immigrants, which is only likely to increase if New Zealand manages to seal a free-trade deal next year, is creating new integration hurdles. Immigrants from ex-colonial nations like India, Hong Kong and Singapore had some preparation for living here. The mainland Chinese have not just greater language and cultural differences, but a worldview still shaped by years of communism.

"Ip says they can feel fiercely patriotic and defensive of their homeland. They also have the confidence of coming from the new world superpower. Where earlier Asian immigrants might have felt more pressure to fit in, the mainland Chinese could prove more assertive of their right to their own way."

Having posed some serious questions on immigration, the article then predictably returns to banality with some inane comment from a left-liberal British immigrant:

"As for the British immigrant, what made her decide to come to Christchurch?The Englishness of the place surely? Well, actually it was discovering you could now get a good Thai takeaway here. A big change from the hicksville of just a few decades ago she says."

Funny how these Islington types always end up looking for non-western cuisine in western countries. If you like Thai, what's wrong with Bangkok?

Less preaching, more education

Like 19th Century Methodists, today's liberal academics love to preach.

Switch on the discovery channel or pick up a history book, and you're likely to hit a barrage of left-liberals messages about saving the environment or the evils of European imperialism.

However, it wasn't always this way, as Fred Reed points out in a recent column "A Craving for Tyranny," traditional western education used to follow a quaint, old-fashioned idea called objectivity:

"I went to a small, very Republican, Southern college these many years ago. In those days communism was thought poorly of. Yet in my survey course on philosophy, we learned what Marx thought, not what to think about Marx. The readings represented his ideas fairly. For further knowledge, go to the library. We were expected to come to our own conclusions, and did. A different world."

When I was at secondary school I used to get annoyed by religious sermons and prayers at assembly time. However, in many ways I think today's situation is much worse. Now the preaching goes on 24-7.

Liberals and nationalism

At the Gates of Vienna site Fjordman had come up with another fine post entitled The Roots of non-Discrimation, Liberalism or Maxism? which has generated a lot of good comments.

For example, a commenter by the name of Simon de Montford made the important point that while the Nazis are often cited as the ultimate example of the evils of nationalism, they were not really true nationalists.

"Fjordman mentioned, as others have, the hysteria against nationalism in Europe after WWII, but the irony is that the Nazis were supra-nationalists who thought in terms race, not nationality: they dragooned all sorts of 'Nordics' into the Waffen-SS and created their crackpot myth of a northern European Master Race that had virutally nothing to do with the borders of Germany or a German nation. The Nazis were anti-Communist lunatic totalitiarians--not nationalists and not really socialists.

"They wanted to destroy the whole concept of nationhood and replace it with an empire dominated by 'Nordics'. Somehow their anti-nationalist efforts ended up as the driving force for the anti-nationalism of the last 60 years."

Take out the Nazis, and the likes of Franco and Mussolini look relatively tame.

In contrast, communism dictators like Stalin and Pol Pot have gotten off far too lightly in liberal assessments of 20th Century history post WWI.

Communism is liberalism

One thing which most liberals conveniently gloss over is the fact that communism is a type of liberalism.

Communism combines left-liberal faith in human equality with right-liberal faith in technological progress and rational management. Traditionalist blogger Mark Richardson suggest that communism is best defined as a type of radical liberalism.

The fact that communism is a type of enlightenment liberalism helps explain why western intellectuals have been far less critical of communism than right-wing fascism, and why right liberals like Christopher Hitchens do not seem to be particularly embarrassed about their Marxist past.

The Nazis may have been more merciless that the Soviets or the Maoists, but overall, communism created far more human misery over the course of the 20th Century. Moreover, its legacy is still causing major social, economic and environmental problems in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Say what what you like about the cruelty of extreme nationalism, but it has never created an environmental problem on a par with what Marxism has done to the Aral Sea.

In discussing the growth of skinhead attacks on foreigners in Russia, left-liberal journalist Mark Ames, of Exile fame, puts much of the blame on communism and neo-liberal economics, while carefully avoiding any criticism of liberalism per se:

"Over the past few decades, Communism and Western-style liberalism have been thoroughly discredited, first by the collapse of the Soviet Union and then with the collapse of the Russian economy by the end of the 1990s. Christianity has never recovered from the Bolshevik Revolution. All of this, put into the context of social, economic, cultural and geopolitical decline, has helped foster growing ultranationalism, including neo-Nazism--which seems strange in a country that lost 27 million people to the Nazis."

Because Ames cannot see that western liberalism in general has aggravated many of the problems faced by Russia, he blames the relatively conservative government of Vladamir Putin for encouraging ethnic violence:

"Since Putin came to power in 2000, Russia has experienced an unexpectedly rapid yet uneven revival, and his government's overt patriotism, as well as its ambivalent attitude toward Western liberalism, reflect and enable the growing appeal of ultranationalism."

I would suspect that to understand the racial attacks in Russia, it is necessary to take into account one or two factors that liberal pundits tend to overlook.

A major factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union was the economic burden Russia faced in having to support economically backward colonies. This drag on the economy became critical in the 1980s, when global prices for oil and minerals nose-dived. Russia was then faced with the unenviable problem of having to support backward countries like Turkmenistan, while its own economy was in economic free-fall.

It is probably hard to underestimate just how disruptive communism was in Russia. When communism collapsed it was found that many cities, of hundreds of thousands of people, were located in economically illogical places and some experts believe that the burden of relocating people to areas where they actually want to live, as opposed to where Soviet planner dictated they should live, is the country's biggest economic problem.

Given that most Russians are still poor, and gain almost no benefit from the arrival of immigrants from former satellites, that used to be subsidised by the Russian government for little in return, it's not really surprising that some of them are hostile to immigrants from former non-Slavic satellites.

The Putin government may be trying to impose conservatism and stability from above, in a rough and ready manner, but it seems preferable to re-visiting liberal approaches which have led to far more pervasive problems.

An oldy but a goody

If you are one of those people who, like me, wonders about the future of western liberalism, then I suggest you check out this excellent article by Eric Kaufmann ( published in Prospect magazine in late 2006).

Here’s one of the key paragraphs:

“Perhaps we are entering a new stage in history in which the demographic flaws in liberalism will become more apparent, paving the way for the return of a communitarian social model. This may still leave democracy, liberalism and mixed capitalism intact. But it will challenge modernism, that great secular movement of cultural individualism which swept high art and culture after 1880 and percolated down the social scale to liberalise attitudes in the 1960s. Cultural modernism has accompanied technological modernisation in the west, while the non-western world has usually modernised its technology rather than its values. Daniel Bell prophesied that modernism's antinomian cultural outlook would prompt a "great instauration" of religion as people sought spiritual solace from the alienation of modern life. Bell has so far been proved wrong, but history may yet vindicate him as we bear witness not to spiritual revival, but to a religious reconquista based, ironically, on the nakedly this-worldly force of demography. “

Peak oil and progress

A thought provoking post from UK blogger Sabretache on Britain's looming energy crisis ("Living in la-la land").

It's a pity there aren't more British and Commonwealth bloggers who are willing to think "outside the box" and question prevailing right-liberal ideology.

Right-wing liberals

Mark Richardson, at the Conservative Central website, points out that today’s “neo-conservatives” are arguably more liberal than conservative and that it’s probably more accurate to label them right-wing liberals.

The liberal right promotes a number of ideas many would consider to be at odds with traditional conservatism including: large-scale immigration, public and individual debt, commercialised government over small government, and the continued expansion of the service sector.

In New Zealand, a large number of neo-conservatives and libertarians, such as the former National party leader Don Brash, are ex-socialists. So it’s no surprise that many of them still have an expansionist, Marxist attitude to immigration. Don Brash apparently supports high immigration provided immigrants adhere to “enlightenment values,” as he stated in a campaign speech before the 2005 election.

Hence, ‘neo-conservatives’ and libertarians support high immigration provided immigrants intend to assimilate into the local society. Traditional conservatives though, have a cautious attitude to immigration because they are doubtful that large numbers of immigrants can be successfully assimilated.

In contrast, right-wing liberals make a number of questionable assumptions about immigration from non-western cultures, including: that immigrants want to assimilate, that they can assimilate, that they can assimilate quickly and can assimilate in large numbers.

For right-wing liberals assimilation is about education and will power and that once exposed to western enlightenment values most non-western immigrants will want to conform to them. However, most of the world doesn’t conform to western values and there is increasing evidence from Europe and the U.S that large numbers of non-western immigrants don’t want to conform to western values.

In France the birthplace of enlightenment liberalism, governing elites have assumed that once Muslim immigrants were exposed to French education, and the French language, they would absorb mainstream western values. As the number of non-western immigrants has risen though, fewer immigrants are integrating into French society. Subsequently, France is now starting to pursue a pragmatic, skilled-based immigration policy over an idealistic, liberal immigration policy.

The liberal right promotes small government in its rhetoric but in practice tends to support relatively large-scale, managerial government. In terms of total spending as a proportion of Gross National Income, the state in New Zealand has not declined during the post-1984 era of neo-liberal reform. Spending on education per pupil for example, has continued to increase without any clear improvement in academic standards- a common pattern in many western countries. Similarly, spending on such things as management salaries, advertising, and corporate image building in the public sector has continued to soar.

In 1992 the ‘neo-conservative’ National government repealed the 1983 Apprenticeship Training Act. This caused a rift between the state and the trades sector, in training manual workers, that has resulted in a significant shortage of tradesmen. The National Party believed that state run training courses could produce better tradesmen than public-private partnerships lead by the private sector. It practice, liberal elites on the right trust the practical common sense of manual workers even less than their left liberal counterparts.

Libertarians and neo-conservatives strongly support public and private indebtedness. In the U.S, Ayn Rand follower Alan Greenspan has presided over the biggest budget blow-out in U.S history while the Republican Party has done little to tackle the looming crisis in Medicare funding.

Here in N.Z, the National Party continues to pour cold water over proposals for compulsory saving, and in the 1990s allowed student debt to get out of hand by allowing students to borrow lump sums for living costs while studying.Unlike many traditional conservatives and populists, the modern right in N.Z isn’t very interested in production. The National Party, for example, hasn’t shown much interest in providing tax concessions for businesses wanting to increase r and d spending.

Libertarians and‘neo-conservatives are however, very interested in boosting consumption and expanding the service economy. In the era of neo-liberal reform there has been an explosion of shopping malls, longer retail hours, increased advertising aimed at children, and reduced restrictions on alcohol consumption and prostitution. Although the National Party was once considered to be a socially conservative party is has failed to take a strong contrary stand on any of these liberal reforms.

In English-speaking economies like New Zealand and the United States it is difficult to find policy areas where modern “neo conservative” parties and their supporters have actually cut back bureaucracy, increased saving, decreased private debt, or restricted the expansion of negative aspects of the service economy. Similarly, neo-conservative governments have generally been supportive of large-scale immigration as a so called "solution" to economic problems.

The populist backlash, in favour of limited immigration, that is occurring in countries like France, Denmark, and now the United States, shows that liberal governments will only give up expansionist liberal policies when forced to by a desperate and alienated electorate.

Some thoughts on John Gray's "Al Qaeda and what it means to be modern"

In Al Qaeda and What it Means to Be Modern John Gray makes some excellent points about the naivety of the liberal right in believing that the world can be re-made in a western image.

However, while he acknowledges the cultural distinctiveness of the West he denies westerners the opportunity to protect themselves by limiting immigration.

Gray succinctly states that globalisation is not making the world more uniform:

"As societies throughout the world become more modern, they do not thereby become more similar. Often they move further apart. In these circumstances, we need to think afresh about how regimes and ways of life that will always be different can come to coexist in peace."

This is sort of thinking that traditional U.S conservatives have been promoting for the last one hundred years but is a message that Liberals, from Woodrow Wilson to Tony Blair, have been consistently ignoring. Most of the World is not like the West and doesn’t want to be like the West.

In military affairs Gray takes the traditional conservative view that enemies can never be eliminated, only contained:

"There cannot be tolerance so long as terrorism is unchecked. Dealing with it is a precondition of any kind of civilised existence and requires courage, skill and - at times – ruthlessness. Yet in the new kind of conventional war that is now being fought there is no prospect of victory."

The neo-conservative idea that threats like terrorism and drugs can defeated in all out, short-term offensives is another utopian idea with a very short shelf life. Another vital point that Gray makes is the importance of overpopulation in global problems:

"The human prospect is shaped by rising human numbers, mounting competition for natural resources and the spread of weapons of mass destruction …Interacting with historic ethnic and religious enmities, they argur conflicts as destructive as any in the twentieth century."

Unfortunately, on the topic of immigration Gray backs down from his post liberal position and criticises ‘far right’ political parties that seek to promote limited immigration. Surely, if western culture is unique, and is threatened by global overpopulation and terrorism, then the West is perfectly entitled to try and limit immigration from non-western countries.

The eminent scientist Gareth Hardin has made a very strong argument that countries need to be made responsible for their own overpopulation problems and that lack of border controls will set up a ‘tragedy of the commons’ situation where countries pass their overpopulation problems onto their neighbours.

If Gray expects to be taken seriously by conservatives then he needs to address Hardin’s hard-headed argument. Furthermore, contrary to what Gray suggests, political parties don’t have to play on ‘racist fears’ of voters to win support for limited immigration policies.

Opinion poles indicate that most people already support limited immigration. The reason we don’t have limited immigration policies in place already is because political parties are deliberately putting big business interests ahead of majority interests.

Gray himself acknowledges that western businesses are a key factor in driving immigration:

"Remember Voltaire’s quip: ‘The comfort of the rich depends on abundant supply of the poor."

In type-casting limited immigration advocates as ignorant populists, Gray alienates the kind of people that are most likely to take his other, more hard-headed, arguments seriously. Its high time self-styled iconoclasts like John Gray stopped squirming around politically sensitive issues like immigration and reveal what they actually think.

New lows for the liberal right

Increasingly exasperated by popular disillusionment over the Iraq conflict and the failure of Bush's immigration amnesty bill in the US, the pro-war, pro-immigration liberal right has decided to blame (wait for it ...) western democracy!

According to Times columnist Gerard Baker, in a recent opinion column, "How paranoid little Napoleons took over the United States," democracy is now passe:

"Democracy, Winston Churchill famously observed, is the worst form of government ever devised -except for all the others, well he was right about the first part."

Having rejected democracy as a workable system of government for America, Baker then has the audacity to use democracy as a rationale for failed neoconservative regime change in Iraq:

"A central tenet of neoconservativism has always been that promoting democracy around the world is not only morally right, but also in the long-term interest of peace and stability."


With the Democrats and old-right Republicans dismissed as irresponsible, anti-democratic populists for wanting to pull out of the unwinnable war in Iraq, Baker decides to attack mainstream America for opposing immigration amnesty:

"President Bush had tried, honourably and rightly, to get a Reform Bill through Congress that would have regularised the status of 12 million illegal immigrants, mostly Latinos, as well as enforcing bordersecurity more effectively."

"The Bill was defeated by a roar of nativist and, at times disguised racist hysteria from the American heartland. Little Napoleons on TV and talk radio strutted and howled, denoucing the President and his supporters for surrendering to a cultural takeover by Mexicans."

A piece of paraphrased advice for Baker - you can insult some of the people, some of the time, but you can't insult all of the people all of the time.

A 'liberal moment'

The other day I made the foolish mistake of leaving my car overnight in a relatively rough neighbourhood. Sure enough, the next day I returned to find one of the windows smashed in.

Against my better judgment, I ignored vaild stereotypes abouts the area's inhabitants, and made an overly optimistic assessment of the chances of my car getting broken into.

In other words, I behaved the way left -liberals say people should do and suffered accordingly.

According to left-liberals, stereotypes are destructive and inaccurate generalisations that make people's lives worse.

In reality though, stereotypes are useful generalisations that help people minimise trouble in their lives and make rational decisions. People develop stereotypes through real world experiences of the type I have just commented on.

Left-liberals seem to believe (without solid evidence) that stereotypes cause people to behave in an unjust, cruel and inconsiderate way to people of other classes, cultures and ethnicities.

If people are unduly cruel and inconsiderate to others it is because of deeper reasons, such as genes, and or, a lousy upbringing, and not because of stereotypes they have supposedly picked up in the media.

I challange liberals to try and get by without stereotypes and see how their lives turn out.