Archive for the 'Globalism' Category

Fighting the “quiet civil war”, and fighting it civilly: some reflections on striving to be a kind culture warrior

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on October 13, 2008
in Christianity, Faith, Globalism, Money and Politics
. 45 Comments

I make no secret of my left-wing leanings, but I am a fairly frequent reader of some conservative websites, including the National Review. This comment from the often funny, often pompous (pot, meet kettle) Mark Steyn intrigued me: A cold civil war? Steyn quotes author William Gibson, and right-wing blogger Hyacinth Girl, who writes:

Every generation says that the politics of the current generation is more contentious than in “their day,” and though we’ve been through a lot as a country–a civil war, two world wars, the threat of nuclear annihilation, and a vicious attack on our homeland–I’ve never before seen such a willingness by one side to tear this country down. A willingness to lie, cheat, and steal this election, reprehensible actions that are absolved by the high priests of modern liberalism, as they are done in the service of the “greater good.” I find myself continually taken aback by how many people claim to be disgusted with this country, desiring that it be remade in the image of a dying Europe.

This country is now, as Steyn has said numerous times, a “50/50 nation.” We are increasingly divided, in a way that is reminiscent of the country my parents inhabited in the late ’60’s, which I’m sure is no coincidence, given the work “educators” like Bill Ayers have been doing for the past several years. I’m not convinced we’ll see a return to the civil unrest of the ’60’s, but I can’t see this country coming together again on much of anything. If 9/11 failed to unite us–it divided us sharply along previously unobtrusive fault lines, surprising many, myself included–then I’m not sure what would. Throughout this election, I’ve expressed my enthusiasm for smaller government and fewer taxes, and I couldn’t comprehend how this did not appeal to everyone. I’m becoming increasingly aware of a growing attitude amongst my countrymen for a more intrusive government, a populace willing to pay higher taxes so long as they don’t have to take care of themselves. Apparently, roughly half of this country feels this way. And I can’t see how that side will “come over” to the side of self-reliance (though I’m not so sure that “we’re” for that anymore either).

So are we witnessing the beginning of a cultural and political standoff? A “cold civil war,” as is has so eloquently been phrased? If so, what the hell are we going to do about it?

I’m not going to get into an argument over the absurdity of Hyacinth Girl’s charges about “stealing” the election. If Obama wins, I do suspect that many on the right will begin to sound very much like the late great Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, intimating that the election was indeed “stolen.” That will give us three consecutive elections in which many on the side that lost the presidency came away convinced that they were “done in” by thievery and not the weaknesses of their own particular candidate. It’s a depressing thought.

What I’m interested in is the notion of a “quiet” or a “cold” civil war. I think Steyn and Hyacinth are on to something, even if I quibble with the latter’s implication that it has “never been this bad.” As a historian by training and profession, I tend to think that knowledge of Clio’s secrets is inversely proportional to how unique one imagines the current situation to be. Those who claim “things have never, ever been this bad” are almost invariably revealing their own ignorance.

On the other hand, it’s hard to dispute that we’re in one — of many — periods of cultural strife. On hot-button social issues (abortion, guns, gay marriage); on military affairs (Iraq); and on the question of America’s role in the world (uniquely elect or called to humility in a community of equals), we are obviously a divided people if not a divided nation. Those divisions seem stronger, of course, because of how close that division is, demographically speaking. Most of us whose memory goes back more than a few decades remember landslide elections rather than the nailbiting affairs of this new century. The country was “divided” in 1964, 1972, and 1984 as well, over many issues — but that didn’t translate into close elections. Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan had their vociferous detractors, but in various ways they were able to assemble massive coalitions to carry them to easy victories. By the standards of the last few years, even Bill Clinton’s relatively small wins in 1992 and ‘96 over George HW Bush and Bob Dole seem easy and foreordained.

I think Barack Obama will probably (not certainly, but probably) pull out this election. It will not be a landslide, either in the popular vote or in the electoral college. And if trends hold, he will take office immensely distrusted (and perhaps hated) by at least 40% of the American public. But given the conditions under which the likes of, say, Rutherford B. Hayes assumed the presidency, I still don’t see the need to claim that we are more divided than at any other time in our history. For most of us, however, we are more divided than at any time in living memory — and while that’s obviously a very different thing, it’s still understandably troubling. Continue reading ‘Fighting the “quiet civil war”, and fighting it civilly: some reflections on striving to be a kind culture warrior’

Loving the whole earth, loving the single place: a long response to Gregory Rodriguez, quoting Abbey and Hauerwas

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 27, 2008
in Books, Christianity, Environmentalism, Ethnicity, Globalism and Traveling
. 5 Comments

I normally like the perspective that L.A. Times’ columnist Gregory Rodriguez takes. But he wrote an op-ed eleven days ago that really irked me: Rootless to a Fault. Here’s a portion of it:

Here in the U.S., highly skilled workers and wealthy entrepreneurs from around the globe contribute mightily to this nation’s productivity and creativity. Their presence in our cities, and ours in theirs, has fostered a greater appreciation of global cultural diversity. It has spawned a vibrant cosmopolitanism that broadens our collective concern for people who live beyond our borders.

But this cosmopolitanism is not without its dark side. Increasingly, many of our big cities’ creative elites — both native and foreign-born — see themselves as citizens of the world. Our intellectuals are exploring the declining significance of place in the new globalized world order. And this brave new world cries out for an answer to the question: Does a person who swears loyalty to all cities and nations have any loyalties at all? I’ve always been struck by the fact that the same people who rightly criticize multinational corporations for having no sense of responsibility to place never seem to express the same concern about the equally “unplaced” creative elite.

A few years ago, I was at a fancy dinner party and found myself the only one at the table who held only one passport.

Rodriguez goes on to make a jarringly wrong premise: those who see themselves as “citizens of the world” are somehow dramatically less engaged in civic activity than those whose horizons are smaller and whose loyalties more narrowly defined. He opines:

Without denying the benefits of globalization, we should remember the beauty and strength of parochialism.

It’s all well and good to love the world, but real social solidarity is generally found on a smaller scale. And it’s not just the unskilled immigrants we should be concerned about. We need to find ways to encourage the highly skilled ones to form a sense of attachment and commitment to their new homes. On top of that, we natives must remember that there is no honor in escaping engagement by becoming a citizen of the world.

First off — and I could be wrong — I smell a tiny whiff in Rodriguez’s piece of an old anti-Semitic canard: the notion that the “wandering Jew”, cosmopolitan to a fault, undermines the stability of whatever society in which he finds himself, because his loyalties are eternally elsewhere. Though that is surely not Rodriguez’s intent, there’s no denying that jeremiads against “jet-setting elitists” who have no commitment to place are not new, and that in the past, many of those attacks have been aimed quite explicitly at Jews. Gregory ought to have known that.

But what I resent about the piece is the notion that loyalty to the world and all of its creatures is somehow incompatible with deep concern for the well-being of particular places. Rodriguez posits what is frankly a monstrously false dichotomy: parochial and engaged or cosmopolitan and unconcerned. Indeed, I assure Greg that there are those among his readers who are devoted to Los Angeles and its well-being without feeling any need to elevate the needs of L.A. above those of the entire planet!

I am a dual citizen, holding UK and US citizenship. My brother, his wife, and children hold a serious array of passports: Mexican, Austrian, British, and American. I have many friends who also have two nationalities, and I have a few acquaintances who have three. And no, we are not all part of some transnational global elite. I’ll be waiting a long time for my invite to rub elbows with the super-rich at the Davos Economic Forum. Of course, my dual citizenship is not without significance to me: it not only gives me and my family options about where to work and live, it reminds me that I do indeed have multiple loyalties and multiple commitments. But my devotion to any one place is not less because of a devotion to many. I have been fortunate to have been able to see much of the world, and am fortunate to have friends and family scattered across many continents. But that sense of belonging to the globe rather than to a country doesn’t mean I am any less passionately devoted to the well-being of Pasadena, or to my students, many of whom have never been on an airplane much less outside of the Western Hemisphere. Continue reading ‘Loving the whole earth, loving the single place: a long response to Gregory Rodriguez, quoting Abbey and Hauerwas’