I have written a number of times about Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam’s recent conclusions that diversity turns Americans into “turtles” and generally makes them isolated and distrustful. Now comes Eduardo Porter, writing an “Editorial Observer” piece in the New York Times, “ Race and the Social Contract,” that without citing Putnam makes some very similar points. The Left, it seems, is becoming increasingly aware of some downsides of diversity.
Porter agrees with Friedrich Engels’ view of the obstacle to working class solidarity in the United States — that because of our “many small groups, each of which understands only itself … [,] the dissimilar elements of the working class fall apart” as soon as it begins to form. For Porter, however, now quoting William Julius Wilson from a decade ago, the real problem is that diversity makes whites selfish and greedy:
American whites rebelled against welfare because they saw it as using their hard-earned taxes to give blacks “medical and legal services that many of them could not afford for their own families.”
The ability to exercise individual choice is also is a problem that afflicts the United States.
The Harvard economists Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser correlated public spending in Western Europe and the United States with diversity and concluded that half the social-spending gap was due to the United States’ more varied racial and ethnic mix. The other half was mostly due to the existence of stronger left-wing parties in Europe.
Americans are not less generous than Europeans. When private charities are included, they probably spend more money for social purposes than Europeans do. But philanthropy allows them to target spending on those they personally believe are deserving, instead of allowing the government to choose.
That problem, however, has an easy remedy: simply raise taxes enough to choke off individual philanthropy (and the philanthropy of organized associations of like-minded individuals in churches, fraternal organizations, clubs, etc.), thus supplying the government with more funds to distribute as it sees fit.
Here is Mr. Porter’s main point:
This breakdown of solidarity should be unacceptable in a country that is, after all, mainly a nation of immigrants, glued together by a common project and many shared values. The United States has showed an unparalleled capacity to pull together in challenging times. Americans have invested blood and treasure to serve a broad national purpose and to rescue and protect their allies across the Atlantic.
Still, racial and ethnic antagonism all too frequently limit generosity at home….
And here is the main problem with Porter’s main point: leaving aside our “common project,” whatever that might be, he never mentions that what has been perhaps the most fundamental of our “many shared values” — the principle that every person has a right to be treated “without regard” to race, creed, color, or national origin — is, sadly, no longer shared at all. It is rejected by virtually all of the leaders of the groups (and their defenders in the press, in academia, in the Democratic Party) who complain so loudly about the lack of “generosity” of everyone else, about “breakdown of solidarity” to which their demand for preferential treatment so greatly contributes.
people won’t do what liberals want so the government should take over, that is the permanent prescription that liberals believe in, no matter what they say about freedom. and when people resist that, when they resist the government taking their money, what then, start putting them in gulags, because otherwise the government will not be able to do what it wants.
if liberals think that competing for jobs creates racism, what do they imagine will happen when people are competing for government largesse, for money for nothing, and when the money is handed out according to group identity. One thing I can guarantee, it will not reduce racism.