By Theodore Kupfer
Thursday, April 04, 2019
In mid March, on Fox News, Democratic congresswoman
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was once again the topic of conversation. Host Laura
Ingraham and her guest, Joe DiGenova, were in the middle of a segment when
DiGenova said something that set off a revealing exchange. “She does the Latina
thing where she does her, you know, ‘Anastasio Ocasio-Cortez,’” said DiGenova,
exaggerating the pronunciation of her last name while managing to get her first
name incorrect. “And then, when I introduce myself, I say, ‘Giuseppe DiGenova.’
And I assume she’s gonna love that.” She didn’t. “Siri, show me the brand of
‘economic anxiety’ that mocks Americans of color as unintelligent + unskilled,
while *also* mocking those same Americans for speaking more languages than
you,” tweeted Ocasio-Cortez. She added that “being multilingual” is a “21st
century thing,” not a “Latino thing.”
Ocasio-Cortez’s response has two key elements. First is
her mocking reference to “economic anxiety,” a progressive meme that parodies
the media coverage of white voters who helped elect Donald Trump. The notion
that Trump voters were motivated by “economic anxiety” is obviously false to
people such as Ocasio-Cortez, who see white-identity politics as the major
driver of support for Trump. Second was the congresswoman’s assertion about multilingualism
— a celebration of the vibrant ethnic diversity of the New York City district
she represents (and where I live) but also, by implication, a suggestion that
being only an English speaker is a thing of the past.
I thought of this exchange while reading Eric Kaufmann’s
sprawling new book, which attempts to diagnose what is happening in Western
politics right now and to propose a remedy that will soothe the distemper. For
while Kaufmann is not a man of the Left, his book advances claims about the
roots of Trump’s rise that suggest that Ocasio-Cortez was closer to the truth
than it might appear.
Whiteshift is
an extremely ambitious book, not only stuffed with reams of data and
social-science research but also featuring a detailed history of immigration
politics in the United States and a detour into the modernist movement in
Western high culture. But it is intelligible for anyone who has been following
American politics, because its basic starting point is a familiar argument:
that Trump and the populist Right currently flourishing in Europe get their
energy from a reaction not to “economic anxiety” but to demographic change.
Unlike the latter-day inheritors of 20th-century race
science, Kaufmann treats whiteness not as an immutable biological reality but
as a sort of social norm. But as demographers define them, whites currently
compose between 62 and 95 percent of the population in Western countries.
Kaufmann’s major claim is that there is a causal relationship between the
ongoing decline of that share of the population — a trend that demographic,
economic, and ecological projections show will not only continue but accelerate
— and the rise of the populist Right.
Like Ocasio-Cortez, he dispenses with the “left behind”
thesis. Instead, he marshals a vast and convincing body of research that shows
concerns over immigration, ethnic change, and national identity predicting
support for Trump. We see such concerns having an effect at a local level:
Rapid ethnic change occasionally results in anti-immigration blowback, as
happened in Hazleton, Pa., an old coal town that elected firebrand Lou Barletta
mayor following an influx of Hispanic immigrants. Trump’s election, Kaufmann
argues, was a similar phenomenon, spurred by cues from national politicians and
the media that resonated among order-seeking voters with lower education levels
for whom issues of immigration and group identity are increasingly salient.
That Trump’s election was an expression of raw ethnic
nationalism is a popular thesis on the left. But unlike most of those who share
his diagnosis of Trump’s victory, Kaufmann argues that an attachment to white
identity and to the current ethnic composition of the country is not
necessarily racist: Many voters with this attachment were motivated by
something he calls “ethno-traditional nationalism,” distinct from ethnic
nationalism in that it merely seeks to avoid rapid ethnic change rather than
seeing ethnicity as an essential criterion for national inclusion. He cites
research by political scientist Ashley Jardina that finds no relationship
between in-group attachment among whites and hostility toward racial
minorities.
“I define racism as (a) antipathy to racial or pan-ethnic
outgroups; . . . (b) the quest for race purity; . . . or (c) racial
discrimination which results in a violation of citizens’ right to equal
treatment before the law,” he writes. This is an idiosyncratic definition of
the word, increasingly so in an era when many in the West see in its history —
and its present — the twin sins of colonial aggression abroad and the systemic
disempowerment of racial minorities at home. From that perspective, expressions
of in-group attachment among whites, or expressions of attachment to the
cultural symbols and ethnic mix of a white-majority nation, are necessarily
insidious. In this view, whiteness is a Trojan horse for the reproduction of
the same racial hierarchies that have prevailed in Western countries throughout
their existence, and it’s incumbent upon whites to leave behind their
identitarian concerns.
Kaufmann deems that school of thought “left-modernism,” a
set of beliefs and taboos prizing egalitarianism and diversity that dates back
to the early 20th century, when WASP intellectuals such as Randolph Bourne
argued that “ethnic minorities” such as Italians and Jews “should preserve
themselves while the majority should dissolve itself.” Summarizing the history
of the immigration debates in the U.S., Kaufmann sees in Bourne and his
followers many of the same arguments advanced today by proponents of liberal
immigration laws, who, he says, encourage racial minorities to celebrate their
culture while propounding anti-racist norms that discourage whites from doing
the same.
Kaufmann sees four possible responses to the ongoing
demographic change in the West, with the rise of populist-Right parties
representing the first: fight it. Figures such as Ocasio-Cortez, meanwhile,
represent the second: repress the concerns it causes, in the name of
anti-racism, “the cornerstone of a liberal-egalitarian belief system that
dominates Western high culture.”
But left-modernism — and the strategy of repression more
generally — invites blowback as it inevitably overreaches. The tandem rise of
campus protests and conservative provocateurs is a good, if convenient, example
of what happens when left-modernist norms are perceived to overreach. “When a
moral narrative starts to be challenged,” writes Kaufmann, “sceptics realize
others share their doubt,” setting off “a self-fulfilling process of norm
unravelling which has produced a rollback of anti-racist taboos” — a cycle that
plays out not just on campus but across the West.
Kaufmann spends most of the book treating left-modernism
as an object of inquiry rather than a set of claims to be challenged. Yet his
major objection to it is nonetheless forceful: Repressing (not necessarily
hostile) expressions of in-group attachment among whites does not so much allay
white anxiety as allow it to ferment and
eventually bubble over in unpredictable, occasionally dangerous ways. Take the
false yet seemingly immortal claim that immigrants commit crime at higher rates
than native-born Americans. In Kaufmann’s view, this is an unfortunate
“sublimation” of white identity: Because they are not permitted to express
concerns about rapid demographic change, anxious whites make pernicious claims
about the out-group.
It’s a compelling point. But if “fight,” which has brought
us political turmoil and unready leaders, and “repress,” which invites blowback
and is based on dubious principles, are out as responses, then what is left?
Kaufmann briefly considers the possibility that mass
white “flight” could bring about a situation akin to that in South Africa
before turning to his proposed solution: “join.” Kaufmann argues that, just as
the category “white” expanded in the 20th century to include Italians, Irish,
and Jews, the current white majority should expand to include the growing ranks
of mixed-race people in exchange for a broad cultural agreement that whites can
advocate their own perceived interests. (This would mean, for example, that
they’d be able to call for reductions to future migration on demographic
grounds, but not that they’d be able to call for mass deportations or express
hostility to prospective migrants.) He calls for severing national identity
from ethnicity, predicting that “with a relaxed and fuzzy line between the
majority and minorities, people can focus on their common, multi-vocal
nationhood.” And he offers himself — a quarter Chinese, a quarter Latino, yet
often construed as white — as an example. If such a bargain is struck, he
predicts, fears of demographic decline will abate and the distemper in the West
will ease.
Kaufmann’s case that rising white anxiety is an urgent
political problem seems almost unassailable, but his solution is sure to be
controversial: to left-modernists, who will find too many concessions to the
Right; to conservatives, who will think that Kaufmann is too friendly to group
interests and identity politics; and to comparative political scientists, who
will think he blurs the lines between Europe and the U.S. Our contemporary
experience suggests that populist politicians are unlikely to observe the
careful distinctions he draws — for instance, between an exclusive and hostile
white identity and an ostensibly inclusive and benign one — and instead opt for
baser formulations. And insofar as his proposed bargain depends on convincing
both group-oriented whites to adopt a more inclusive identity and
left-modernists to relax their repressive stance, its chances of success seem
up in the air.
But Kaufmann’s book is valuable for its breadth, for its
clear analysis of often-confused issues, and for its asseveration of the stakes
of politics in an era of demographic change. Perhaps its most urgent claim is
that the concerns of order-seeking voters, or “ethno-traditional nationalists,”
are not going away simply because left-modernists find them distasteful. To be
clear, Kaufmann doesn’t think that demographic change poses a first-order
threat to social stability. Rather, as someone who wants to avoid seismic
changes to Western institutions, he fears the inevitable reaction to demographic
change by a critical mass of people and the condemnation that such a reaction
invites.
Thus does Kaufmann seek a way out of the cycle of toxic
demagogy and left-modernist boundary policing into which our politics has
depressingly degenerated — and which the Ocasio-Cortez–Ingraham Angle episode neatly represents. Whiteshift makes the reader aware that DiGenova’s mocking attitude
toward Ocasio-Cortez’s Latina identity is a form of sublimated, unconstructive
pandering to white identity. Yet aware, too, that many people who monitor
Ocasio-Cortez’s Twitter were surely put off by her flippant suggestion that
those who don’t speak a second language are relics of the past. It is a
reminder that, as much as being bilingual may be a 21st-century thing, so too
are the concerns of those who bristle when told to press 1 for English.
No comments:
Post a Comment