Geopolitical Futures: Merkel Doesn’t Blame the Voter [+1]
But while this is becoming visible outside of the establishment parties, the establishment is oblivious that they are failing. In their minds, there have been minor difficulties that need to be worked out over time, and the increasing noise from outside their framework is first a nuisance and then a hindrance to their prudent management of the situation.
As the public becomes more alarmed and frustrated at the inability of the establishment parties to grasp that there is something terribly wrong, two things happen. First, the voters are blamed for their immaturity and there is increasing alarm that the irresponsibility of the public will disrupt the management of the system. Second, leaders arise who share or (in the case of politicians) exploit the increasing fear. The mainstream parties invent the idea that it is these new politicians, inappropriate by tenor and character of governing, who are creating a crisis. This is important: the perception is that the new politicians are creating the crisis, not the other way around.
The response of the mainstream politicians and their supporters to the Brexit vote was a classic example. There has been an increasing social crisis in Britain that neither of the major parties seemed aware of. They assumed that most people would not want major banks to leave London and therefore would vote to remain in the EU. They could not grasp that the majority of Britain had far greater problems, which the City was neglecting and possibly compounding.
Liberals didn’t understand and still fail to grasp this long view. You often seeArgumenta Ad Passiones about saving human lives and about making society benevolent. Not only are these cries of morality often naïve and ahistoric, they disregard the fact that morality does not matter in polity — only interests matter. For all the liberal talk of respecting individual cultural differences, they are myopic about the cultural difference of millions of people heading their way and the difficulty in resettlement and integration, and the inevitable societal backlash. For all the lament about the lack of interventions in faraway lands, where the West has no discernible geopolitical interest, liberals often fall prey to monadic analysis where the resolve and perception of the opposing forces are not taken into consideration.
Taboo questions are still not answered, or even discussed in polite academic or analytic circles, even in the supposedly free Western societies. What if immigrantsdon’t want to integrate or even respect their host societies and cultures? What if the majorities of host societies refuse to accept or are indifferent to the plight of faraway people? Is refusing to listen to the will of the majority making liberal politicians anti-democratic? What should be the measurable indices by which a migrant can show his or her will to respect and contribute to a host society? Is migration a permanent recipe for conflict and societal strain? And ultimately, on whose side is the burden of assimilation?