A COMMONALITY, AND THUS A COMMUNITY, OF VALUES:

Horns of the liberal dilemma: The tragedy of the Chinese workers in Morecambe and the simmering arguments about freedom of movement in a newly enlarged European Union have focused attention once again on immigration. David Goodhart, one of our leading liberal intellectuals and editor of the progressives' journal, Prospect, offers a penetrating analysis and a radical prescription for one of the most contentious issues facing us (David Goodhart, February 8, 2004, The Observer)

The abstract language of globalisation and universal human rights risks blinding us to some basic truths about our society. The national community remains the basic unit of human political organisation and will remain so long into the future. And when politicians talk about this community or the 'British people', they refer not just to a set of individuals with specific rights and duties but to a group of people with a special commitment to one another.

Membership in such a community implies acceptance of moral rules, however fuzzy, which underpin the laws and welfare systems of the state. It also confers immense privileges - physical security, freedom of many kinds, the chance to flourish economically, free education, free health care, and welfare benefits if you cannot support yourself.

National citizenship is inherently exclusionary. [...]

Welcome or not, greater diversity almost by definition eats away at a common culture and feelings of mutual obligation, yet a strong common culture is required to sustain a generous welfare state. This is what I have described elsewhere as the 'progressive dilemma'.

The best summary of the dilemma has been given by Tory MP David Willetts: 'If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask, "Why should I pay for them when they are doing things I wouldn't do?" This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the US, you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests.'

Transition to an Opportunity Society would then have the twin effect of removing the incentive for welfare free-loaders to immigrate and alleviating the suspicion in the mind of natives that they are funding the freeloaders.

There's a corollary to Mr. Goodhart's analysis though, that too few seem to recognize these days: the immigrant (especially America's immigrants) will often adhere more closely to the core values of the Republic than the natives, for example the secular Left. Indeed, it's arguable that the "American community" has remained healthier than its European counterparts because we import enough new folk who want to be a part of it to make up for the rot of those born here who don't.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 18, 2004 9:40 AM