By Ian Tuttle
Saturday, une 25, 2016
If Brexit’s critics are right, the European Union should
be glad to be rid of the United Kingdom.
In the wake of the U.K.’s decision to withdraw from the
EU, the anti-Brexit crowd has leaped to explain the vote in stark terms. “The
force that has been driving [‘Leave’ voters] is xenophobia,” wrote Vox’s Zack Beauchamp, and at Esquire Charles Pierce explained: “Some
of the Oldest and Whitest people on the planet leapt at a chance to vote
against the monsters in their heads.” The Guardian’s
Joseph Harker mused: “It feels like a ‘First they came for the Poles’ moment.”
And blogger Anil Dash managed to squeeze all of these dismissive opinions into
a single tweet: “We must learn from brexit: Elderly xenophobes will lie to
pollsters to hide their racist views, then vote for destructive policies
anyway.”
There was, to be sure, no absence of toxic rhetoric over
the course of the U.K.’s referendum campaign. Especially in the weeks before
Election Day, the cynicism of both sides was on full display. Still, the
impulse to accuse 17 million people of racism seems an unhealthy one.
Alas, it’s not just the Brits. Less than 24 hours before
polls closed in the U.K., President Obama responded to the Supreme Court’s
decision to uphold the injunction against his 2014 executive amnesty by
dismissing his critics as those who want “to wall [them]selves off from those who
may not look like us right now, or pray like we do, or have a different last
name.” He warned that America’s immigration policy does not “reflect its
goodness,” and chided “spasms of politics around immigration and
fear-mongering.”
The anti-Brexit crowd and the president do their critics
an injustice. What is noteworthy is that they do it in the same way.
In the wake of Orlando, I noted: “The invocation of
‘hate’ has become a way of dismissing opponents by suggesting that their beliefs
are beyond the reach of reason. You can’t debate someone who hates, because
hatred precludes thought; it’s in the bones. If Republicans are motivated by
‘hate,’ then they are not legitimate political actors, because political life
cannot be predicated on irrationality. Reason is our common ground.”
That same impulse is on display here, where “hate” has
simply been replaced with some other emotion: “fear,” “xenophobia,” etc. The
key is that the animating force is not thought; it’s raw, unconsidered passion.
That is not true when it comes to Brexit, and it’s not
true when it comes to immigration in the U.S. But the powers-that-be have lost
sight of that. Both sides of the Atlantic are dominated by liberal
cosmopolitans who are no longer able to acknowledge the validity of any other
worldview than their own. The anti-Brexit crowd cannot acknowledge that those
who voted to leave may have done so out of legitimate concerns about
sovereignty or economic opportunity or security — that is, that they may have drawn
rational conclusions and voted accordingly. And President Obama seems incapable
of recognizing that there are reasonable, non-bigoted grounds on which to
oppose his executive actions — for example, to preserve the principle of
separation of powers that is a pillar of the American constitutional order.
Liberal cosmopolitanism, regnant since the end of the
Cold War, has bought completely into its own rightness. It is entirely devoted
to an increasingly borderless political future carefully managed by technocrats
and tempered by “compassion” and “tolerance” — all of which aims at the maximal
amount of material prosperity. It sees no other alternative than that we will
all, eventually, be “citizens of the world,” and assumes that everyone will be
happier that way.
It’s not unreasonable to think otherwise. Anti-EU
movements and renewed nationalism in the United States are on the rise
precisely because they offer alternatives to this self-assured order. It’s not
clear whether a United Kingdom withdrawn from the EU will be better off. But
it’s entirely defensible to think that it might be. Likewise, it’s not
unreasonable to prefer loyalties rooted in close-knit interactions among people
who share a particular space and a particular history. Or to prefer local rule
to government outsourced to distant bureaucracies. Or to prefer a richer sense
of belonging than interaction in a common market. There are alternatives to a
transnational super-state that are not fascism.
The inability of our political leaders to envision
political futures other than the one to which they are wedded has facilitated
the polarization, and the unresponsiveness, of our politics. That people are
now looking for alternatives is, in fact, entirely reasonable.
No comments:
Post a Comment