The new labels

le-penRIGHT-WING FRENCH politician Marine Le Pen opines: There is no more Left or Right. There are only Globalists or Nationalists.

I think she is right, no pun intended. But those labels are another, fresher way, of saying Left and Right.

The key issue is multiculturalism, the diversity thing. It you favor it, you’re on the Left, a Globalist. If you oppose it, as I do, you’re on the Right, a Nationalist.

Multiculturalism has been the rage in elitist, left-wing circles for decades, and its heavy hand inspired the backlash that has Donald Trump heading to the Oval Office. Perhaps he can knock a little sense into our heads.

Multiculturalism was seeded in the 1960s, a hippie thing. It’s Utopian, idealistic, lovely to imagine, dreamy-eyed, and totally unworkable. Like socialism-communism.

It birthed the curse of Political Correctness.

In the real world, people embrace their differences, their individuality, with a vengeance. We love what separates us, what makes us think we’re better than others.

Ego.

Obama’s a Globalist. Trump’s a Nationalist. The next eight years will be fun as Globalists collide with reality.

I like the new labels.

22 thoughts on “The new labels”

  1. So what’s new? The entire history of the USA, from the very beginning until present day, there has been a nativist movement. The Federalists vs Thomas Jefferson to the Know Nothings to Operation Wetback to present day paranoia. Zzzzzzzzz!

    Like

  2. I tend to avoid the Manichean dichotomy of globalism vs. nationalism. There are lots of people with feet in both camps. Or, rather, people who cherry pick from each column. I am one of them. I support free trade and free trade agreements. I oppose almost all forms of trade protectionism. Propping up business with taxpayer money is folly. But I also realize multiculturalism is every bit the folly that protectionism is. The type of nationalism promoted by Marine Le Pen is well-suited to restricting individual liberty. That is one reason she and her party are vehemently anti-American.

    I resist labels because they are not conducive to having conversations with people with whom I agree and disagree. They tend to be conversation stoppers. Having said that, I have noticed that The Economist has started using a variation of your “lambs separated from goats” language.

    Like

    1. Señor Cotton: I have not been paying much attention to the details of Le Pen’s party. If they are anti-American I submit that the last eight years of Obama likely was good reason. If they were that way before 2008, and I’m taking your word for it, it would not be surprising due to its being very nationalist, and the nation is France. The nationalist party of Great Britain, on the other hand — UKIP and its spiritual leader, Nigel Farage — are very pro-American. I love Farage.

      As for labels, I do not resist them. I find them useful. Kinda like stereotypes which are rooted in reality more often than not.

      Like

      1. I agree with you about stereotypes. As long as we are willing to dig underneath and discover how each individual diverges from our expectations. Labels may be a place to start, but too often they are merely conversation stoppers. Once you pull out fascist, racist, socialist, sexist, commie, homophobe, neoliberal, or a plethora of other silly attack words, any further conversation is inevitably forestalled. And we are all guilty of doing it.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Señor Cotton: Ah! So those are the types of labels you were thinking of. Those are not good, of course. I was thinking of more socially acceptable labels, due to my being a socially acceptable guy, labels like Democrat, Republican, Georgia cracker, American, Mexican, etc.

          The fascist, racist, sexist, etc., labels are less labels in my book than epithets. Some, however, are accurate. Socialist, neoliberal, etc. These have clear definitions and are not inherently negative. A socialist proudly admits to such. Bernie Sanders for example.

          Some of all this is foggy too.

          Like

  3. Multiculturalism is what makes cities so fun to visit. Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, NYC, Miami, London and others. Multiculturalism also drives up real estate prices so living there is very expensive.

    I guess no one wants a barrio in the middle of their city.

    Like

    1. Señor Davis: There are upsides to multiculturalism, especially in the restaurant realm. I’m not clear on how multiculturalism drives up real estate prices. I imagine what you are thinking of are big cities that tend to be diverse due to their size and economic opportunities that attract people from all over. I cannot see that it’s the multiculturalism in itself that does that. I think you have the cart before the horse, or something like that.

      When I diss multiculturalism, I usually get reactions like: But I love Thai restaurants, that sort of thing. But the real bone I have to pick with encouraging multiculturalism, and it’s the encouragement that creates problems, is that societies with large contingents of different religions, languages, cultures, etc., have, far more often than not, over the course of history, suffered serious conflict, murder and mayhem. Examples abound in spades.

      Multiculturalism is a problem that must be dealt with in the kindest and most effective way possible. It is not something to be put on a pedestal and admired, which is what the primarily Anglo, Western democracies have been doing for decades now, and the results are obvious, growing more problematical each day.

      Nobody encourages multiculturalism in Latin America or Asia where they value their own cultures. PC does not exist in most of the world. They are smart in that.

      Like

      1. Unfortunately, The U.S. and Canada have no “culture” of their own. Latin America, Asia, and even most of Europe all have long established cultures. As for U.S. and Canada, they are a melting pot. Countries built by many cultures have a Culture of Multiculturalism.

        I’ve not been anywhere except North America so my firsthand knowledge of other cultures is nonexistent. From what I’ve learned though, countries with their own deep-seated cultures do NOT welcome outsiders. Hitler was a perfect example of nationalism gone bad. I just have to laugh at the Americans who don’t like outsiders. How many of them would be shocked to learn of their German-Irish-Italian-Scandanavian-African-American heritage.

        Most of us in the “White” majority came from scoundrels and slave traders. These same “Nationalists” feel the same prejudice against Native Americans as they do any other outsider. The hypocrisy lies in the selective bigotry.

        Like

        1. Señor Davis: Oh, poo-poo! Of course, the U.S. and Canada have their own cultures, and they are pretty similar in many ways. I cannot speak much about Canada because I don’t know much about Canada apart from their love of maple syrup, but the melting pot thing in the U.S. traditionally was a melting pot of people from varying nations, true, but almost exclusively European, so they pretty much looked alike and were Christian. There was much sameness in the melting pot. The only people who were not white European Christians were the slaves brought over, a colossal error the nation is regretting down to this day.

          As for your claim that Americans do not like outsiders, that has become a bigger issue in recent decades due to the illegal-alien problem from down my way. People entering the country illegally and outsiders in general have been confused in many people’s minds — the left likes to promote that confusion — but it’s the open-borders people in both political parties who have created this very serious problem. Another aspect of this is that human nature makes us wary of different folks. There are many individual exceptions, of course. I am one, and probably you are too. But that is the core problem with multiculturalism. It creates strife.

          And in closing, Dave, Dave, Dave, most whites come from “scoundrels and slave traders”? That’s just plain silly. Perhaps a therapist could help with this self-loathing.

          Like

  4. The western WHITE democracies have no choice but to embrace multiculturalism. They have negative birth rates of their white constituents. They require more bodies in order to fuel their capitalist economies. Thus you have the conundrum in the U.S. of the so-called illegals. The system needs them, but many don’t want them.

    Like

    1. Smokesilver: It’s Sophie’s Choice. Damned if they do. Damned if they don’t. Or the white folks (I prefer Anglo because there are white Hispanics. Anglo is more specific) can simply multiply more, i.e. learn habits from minorities. Get naked, get wild.

      Like

  5. I have always felt that the great strength of the American culture was the melting pot rather than multiculturalism. Or at least, the way I understand multiculturalism. Where you live in a cultural ghetto and resist any changes.

    My idea of the melting pot is this.The emigrating generation does its best to fit in but keeps old world traditions going at home. First generation, my generation, has one foot in both worlds but doesn’t really fit in either. And 2nd generation, my children, are American, but have cherry picked the best traditions and foods. The 3rd generation, my grandkids, are fully American. While they eat Cuban food, they also dine upon Vietnamese, Chinese, and Mexican but think of it all as American food.

    regards,
    Theresa

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Teresa: I like your take on things. It is how the melting pot functioned for a long, long time, and it functioned very well for the most part.

      But the melting pot has become a salad. It has become stylish to celebrate differences and not jump into the melting pot. And if you can feel victimized, all the better.

      Thanks for the good interpretation.

      Like

  6. Problems begin when you mix multiculturalism with political correctness. Many do not want to be told who they should like or dislike. Mandatory political correctness is poison and foolishness.

    On a personal level, I can make friends with just about everyone. It is my choice.

    Like

  7. Multiculturalism is not the problem. Rather it is creating, encouraging, and sustaining divisions where they neither really exist, nor need to exist. We are all mankind, and while we have different cultures, at the heart of it, we are all the same. Chihuahuas, St. Bernards, and Beagles are all dogs and they can all live together peacefully (for the most part) because they recognize each other as the same thing. They are not focused on size, spots, fur length, or other superficialities. Each has its own personality, but at the end, they are all dogs.

    We people aren’t so different at the root, but constantly emphasizing the differences, dividing people into opposed camps (Sunni vs Shia, Muslim vs Christian, Black vs White, etc. vs. etc.) is the problem.

    Historically, Americans have created solidarity by believing in a credo of democratic gov’t, separation of powers, individual liberties, etc. As long as you believed that, you could be an American regardless of birthplace, religion, skin color, etc.

    It’s high time we got back to that very core value that made us Americans. We aren’t so different, and those who would make us so demean us.

    Politically, we are witnessing a generational realignment. Left/right don’t mean what they used to, and the two parties’ historical identities don’t speak much to current realities. Wealthy Republicans have much more in common with wealthy Liberal elites than either have with the “working man” who was the traditional Democratic party base.

    Things are now dividing much more along class/income/wealth lines than ideological lines. I think such a thing is likely to continue. Trump abandoned social conservatism, and I believe that was a key element in his electoral win. Moreover, Trump and Le Pen are simply symptoms of something much larger than any of them.

    Saludos,

    Kim G
    Redding, CA
    Where we are solidly in the deep red part of California.

    Like

    1. Kim: As is usually the case, I agree with some of what you say and I disagree with other parts. But the good news, the news that you are rising on the IQ scale, is that you voted for Trump, perhaps the only gay native Californian to do so. Tip of the sombrero for that.

      Like

Comments are closed.