September 21, 2004
ADDING THE WRONG RELIGION TO THE AGENDA:
Trying to put Islam on Europe's agenda (John Vinocur, September 21, 2004, Intenational Herald Tribune)
About nine months ago, Francis Fukuyama, the historian, said that one of the big things distinguishing America from Europe was that, while the United States had staged its great debate on race, Europe hid from dealing frontally with how much Islam it could live with inside its borders.Now, Fukuyama, author of the celebrated essay "The End of History," has taken this message to the Europeans. In a speech in Germany about two weeks ago, he urged Europe to stop being intimidated about using its right to defend its own humanist culture. He even employed the expression "leitkultur," or leading culture - touchy among Germans because of its supposed elitist resonance - to describe the legitimacy of shoring up a distinctly European identity.
Fukuyama will return to speak in Europe this month and next. His desire to raise the issue of Islam and Europe is intriguing at the least, and surely intrusive for some Europeans. But it reflects a central concern of other leading American academics. Samuel Huntington of Harvard and Bernard Lewis, the Princeton emeritus professor and Middle East expert, men sometimes schematized with Fukuyama as conservatives (although Huntington and Fukuyama are tough critics of aspects of America's involvement in Iraq), have recently questioned the extent of Europe's stability over the coming century as a result of Islam's growing presence. [...]
Lewis, in a little-noted question-and-answer session with the German newspaper Die Welt this summer, predicted Western Europe's coming Islamization. He reiterated this view in private talks with senators here in September.
"Europe will be a part of the Arab West or Maghreb," he told the newspaper. "Migration and demography indicate this. Europeans marry late and have few or no children. But there's strong immigration: Turks in Germany, Arabs in France and Pakistanis in England. At the latest, following current trends, Europe will have Muslim majorities in the population at the end of the 21st century."
Lewis also went on to point out to Die Welt what he saw as ambiguous feelings among Europeans about Muslims and the United States, saying: "In this connection, the European Union could rename itself the community of envy. Europeans have reservations about an America which has surpassed it so clearly. And that's why the Europeans understand the Muslims - because they have similar feelings about America." [...]
In a conversation here, Fukuyama said it would be a mistake, with dangerous exclusionary overtones, for Europe to hold up Christianity as its sole defining mark.
"There is a European culture," he said. "It's subscribing to a broader culture of tolerance. It's not unreasonable for European culture to say, 'You have to accept this.' The Europeans have to end their political correctness and take seriously what's going on."
Mr. Fukuyama, often wise, betrays the classic neocon failing here in his inability to follow where his diagnosis of the problem leads: European culture is, obviously, Judeo-Christian and if Europe were to survive--which seems unlikely--it would have to have n American style Great Awakening. That view, basically secularist, which holds tolerance to be an end, rather than a means to a higher end, is ultimately destructive of the very liberalism it mistakenly believes it defends. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 21, 2004 7:39 PM
Europe, like the Dalai Lama a few posts down, is actively committing suicide through "tolerance". Fukuyama's advice that they should actively defend their "broader culture of tolerance" is nonsense, in fact impossible. They believe in a nothing (the idea that "intolerance/being judgmental" is BAD doesn't tell you what is GOOD), with no creed or beliefs or reason to sustain themselves in the face of a threat from those who most definitely know what they believe in. Their "broader culture of tolerance" tells them they must accept the Muslims as they are, and to do otherwise would be to reject their own "broader culture of tolerance". Note the "dangerous exclusionary overtones" nonsense used to dismiss the thought that Christianity is fundamental to European culture. How exactly is foisting a "broader culture of tolerance" on immigrants for whom it will be viewed as heretical apostasy not "dangerous[ly] exclusionary"?
Posted by: brian at September 21, 2004 8:08 PMbrian:
Bingo! The demand for complete tolerance is itself intolerant.
Posted by: oj at September 21, 2004 8:14 PMAlthough it sure is fun to watch liberals chase their tails trying to be more and more tolerant, hoping to reach tolerance Nirvana. I think at some point they wind up like those guys in the catacombs in "The Stars My Destination."
Posted by: Governor Breck at September 21, 2004 8:41 PMOff topic ~
Orrin:
Fukuyama irrationally believes that American lifespans will continue to increase, due to advanced medical techniques, but that the cyborg seniors will be enfeebled*, so that at some point in the future there will be an enormous population of unproductive elders gumming up the works.
These aged people, despite barely clinging to life and needing constant, expensive care, will somehow also be a potent political force, gathering to itself the fruits of younger workers.
oj, you've said several times that you believe in Fukuyama's vision of the future; and yet, you also believe that gov't budget deficits and overall debt levels don't matter.
Those are intrinsically opposite beliefs.
One way to sidestep the conflict is to propose that a massive productivity explosion will occur°, and that there will be a much, much larger pie to slice up; however, if future seniors are a selfish, dominant political force, perhaps even a majority, wouldn't they simply lay claim to a much vaster portion of America's productivity and surplus ?
That puts us right back at: If Fukuyama is correct, then deficits do matter.
* Lifespans will continue to increase in all advanced nations, but the quality of senior life will improve as well.
In fifteen years, giving people "youth juice", (human growth hormone and other hormones and steroids), will be even more common than HGH therapy is today.
In thirty years, run-down seniors might have their organs cloned, (only the organs, not a whole organism), and then get an all-internal-organ transplant.
Whatever the procedures, most people won't be "old" until they're 80, 90, or possibly even 110.
These people will be productive, and forward thinking, not cripples gumming their food and waiting to die between elections.
° The rate of productivity growth will continue to increase, and possibly even with enough vigor to spare GenX and the Millennials the bulk of the burden of supporting the Boomers in retirement.
The "Selfish Seniors" of the future won't demand the lion's share, because future 80 year olds won't consider themselves "seniors", their paradigm will still be one of growth and future possibility, not of hoarding and rocking on the porch.
· · ·
Governor Breck:
Love that book !!
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 22, 2004 12:53 AMGully Foyle is my Name and Terra is My Nation.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 22, 2004 1:24 AMMichael:
They don't matter for us, we are becoming an ever more powerful nation and are growing both our population and our economy. A 30 year old should have high debt. Europe and Japan are like 70 year olds who are trying to buy houses--no one will lend you money at the end of your life with no security.
Posted by: oj at September 22, 2004 7:35 AMFukuyama's point is that America will someday resemble Japan, in the sense that one out of three or so people will be what we now consider old-aged.
Thus, if you believe in his vision of the future, (and there are excellent reasons why you should not), and you believe that Japan's deficits matter, then you must believe that America's deficits will matter too.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 23, 2004 4:48 AMAmerica will have at least 500 million people by 2050, an increase of 66%. Japan will have decreased by some considerable %. The two societies are complewtely dissimilar, not least because people will eagerly be lending the growing one money and calling in the chits of the dying one.
Posted by: oj at September 23, 2004 7:31 AM