Sunday, August 4, 2019

Liberal Overreach and the Global Right Turn

"If you are not a liberal at 25, you have no heart.
If you are not a conservative at 35, you have no brain."

- Quote by Unknown

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed in this post are purely my own personal opinions. I identify as neither a liberal nor a conservative but prefer the label "freethinker." I have critiqued both liberal and conservative positions with a constitutional lens. That said, many of my opinions, but not all, align with liberal policies. This post, however, might be contrarian to prevailing liberal opinions.


Nothing captures the zeitgeist of our times more than the incredible rightward turn in polity across the world, from Asia to Europe to the Americas. The massive victory the Hindutva nationalists in the Indian federal elections in 2014 and again in 2019, the shock referendum result of Brexit in 2016, the equally shocking victory of Trump in the US Presidential election in 2016, the almost unfathomable gains of the far right AfD in Germany in 2017, and the election of Bolsanaro as Brazil's President in 2018. Not to mention the recent hysteria about a "border crisis" in the USA, the "Islamization" of Europe, and the rising tide of ultra-nationalists in many supposed democracies like Turkey, Russia, Hungary, etc. So dramatic is this global right turn that many even wonder if the liberal ethos of humanity formalized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is now lost.

In this post, I argue that this right turn is less of a rollback of liberalism and more of a natural consequence of fundamental human traits that span cultures. The pendulum will inevitably swing back but it is still worthwhile to glean useful lessons from this phenomenon. My analysis focuses on 3 crucial cases I am (at least somewhat) familiar with: USA, India, and Germany. If I were to use one word to sum up a large part of this upheaval, it would be identity. While mixing identity and polity is often seen as inimical to democracy, this view ignores a simple fact: Identity is and always has been the bedrock of almost all human societies. When smug dismissive views of the importance of identity cross the invisible line into political overreach, blowback is inevitable. In this case, I contend that liberals are perpetrators of such an overreach with majority identities.

Thought Experiments


In ethics and moral philosophy, there is a famous thought experiment called the Trolley Problem. Often criticized as being extreme, it is actually a useful abstraction of priorities in human decision making. I now use it to demonstrate a simple, perhaps even obvious, point that underlies the global right turn: Not all people are effective equals. This is not the view of merely racists, xenophobes, etc. I contend that this is the natural and inevitable view of almost all reasonable humans.


Experiment 1: The Basic Version.
5 people are tied to a trolley track. 1 person is tied to a second track that branches off. None of them can escape. A heavy trolley is barreling down the first track. Left as such, the trolley will kill those 5 people. But there is a lever to switch the trolley to the second track. You are the only person near the lever who can switch the trolley's path. You have only 2 options: (1) Do nothing and let the 5 people die. (2) Pull the lever to switch the trolley track and let the 1 person die. Which option will you pick? Take a moment to contemplate your decision before reading ahead.

Philosophers and ethicists have debated this problem for decades. There is no "right" answer but the common view is that the "morally right" decision is (2), since it causes the least amount of harm (also called utilitarian ethics). I suspect you also picked (2). In some macabre science, cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists are unraveling the workings of the human brain to explain why we pick the options we do. This basic version is an "impersonal" dilemma. Fascinatingly, more "personal" dilemmas such as the footbridge problem typically yield opposite results. As you probably guessed, we will now get more "personal" with the trolley problem.

Experiment 2. 
Suppose you are told in advance that the 5 people are random strangers but the 1 person is your only child who you deeply love. Which option will you pick now? Take a moment to contemplate your decision again.

It does not take a genius of human psychology to guess that most people will now switch to option (1). Now what if I told you further that the 5 random strangers are refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war or violence in El Salvador? Will your decision switch back? Likely not. Does this mean most people are evil and bigoted and hate refugees? No. Can love conflict with human rights principles? Yes. A preference for one's own offspring is the natural evolutionary trait of not just humans but many other animal species. A generalization of this sentiment underlies why many people are indifferent even to the extremely heartwrenching stories of Alan Kurdi or Angie Martinez. Clearly, empathy has its limits. Let us now extrapolate it further.

Experiment 3. 
Now suppose you are one of the last few members of a proud tribe that share a rich but almost extinct language. The 5 people are random English/Spanish speaking outsiders. The 1 person is a fellow tribesman. Which option will you pick now? Take a moment to contemplate again.

It is quite likely that most people would pick option (1) again in much the same way as we saw for Experiment 2. Essentially, tribal attachments are the sociological generalization of family attachments. They are a natural consequence of being a social species, a trait we share with our fellow great apes and many other higher mammals. Heck, even a single church building raised over a billion Euros in a few days, while estimates for permanently eradicating child hunger in Africa are only a couple of times larger. Clearly, even inanimate objects can be more equal than fellow humans when they are as integral to identity as Notre Dame is to the French.

Lessons from the Thought Experiments


I contend that a major part of what powers the global right turn is a grand generalization of Experiment 3. Economic anxieties caused by recessions, joblessness, and unfair global trade policies are the trolley. Modern tribes may not be physically colocated but are more complex and multi-faceted: language, ethnicity, religion, region, nationality, sexual orientation, gender, etc. Not everyone who prefers to live within one's own tribe is an evil racist, xenophobe, etc. This recognition of the importance of identity is not a moral position nor is it apologia for the real harm that racism, xenophobia, etc. cause (e.g., the mass shootings in New Zealand). Rather, it is an admission of fundamental psychological forces that make it hard for many to draw the boundary between the scenarios of Experiment 1 vs 3 depending on how the tribe is defined. If liberal democracies are to progress, they need to acknowledge and understand the power of such forces, be clear about where the line falls, and figure out how to mitigate or even leverage such forces. By applying this lens to the global right turn, I see two main lessons.

1. Uncontrolled Immigration Subverts National Identities


Like it or not, the framework of national identities underpins our modern world. The UN itself stands for United "Nations," not a world government. Many post-colonial countries even promoted healthy nationalism to forge new "umbrella" identities out of their myriad sub-national identities. Some like India have largely succeeded in this endeavor. Some like Yugoslavia failed spectacularly. Some like Iraq remain slow-motion failures ruined by civil wars. Newer umbrella identities continue to be forged, say, like the EU. Regardless, what defines a national structure is a tenuous combination of legal statutes and informal assumptions. But only the former has the force of law.

Alas, uncontrolled immigration violates the integrity of nations in a way that resembles Experiment 3, especially amidst economic uncertainty. This is a key reason for the backlash seen in the USA and Germany. As an analogy, most people will not throw open their homes to random strangers, especially at a cost to their own family. National structures, physical or otherwise, have similar emotional import for many. National borders are not mere administrative conveniences.

The USA was indeed created as a "nation of immigrants." But this umbrella identity is an informal assumption, not a legal statute in its Constitution. Indeed, the (derisive) phrase "hyphenated American" was coined to promote a new unified umbrella identity. This latter nation is what is codified in law, not an ad hoc collection of immigrants. USCIS recently made this distinction comically literal. So, subverting such legal statutes will obviously lead to pushback. Yes, there is racism and xenophobia among many, but there is also legitimate non-malicious desire among many others to preserve national identity and the due process of legal immigration that is fair to all. This desire is not hateful but rational for any nation.

The subversion of constitutional "civic nationalism" by misguided liberal policies is a major cause of the rise of "ethnic/white nationalism" in the USA.

In fact, I fear it is likely white nationalism will continue to gain strength in the USA if liberals continue to unfairly favor Latino/Hispanic people from Latin America on immigration. Similarly, the sudden mass influx of non-Germans, especially refugees and economic migrants from the Middle East, subverted the legal statutes that define German national identity. A nationalist backlash then is natural. Yes, there is "German guilt" about the Holocaust that leads many to think Germany has a special responsibility. But equally legitimate is the desire to put poor German citizens first, especially those from former East Germany. No wonder then that support for the AfD is strongest in eastern Germany.

Large umbrella identities take time to evolve. The USA only recently (a few decades ago) expanded its identity to include equality for black people. This is still a work in progress given the everyday racism still faced by black people. One day Germany's national identity might expand to include non-German languages but it is unlikely to happen soon. Even the integration of Turkish migrants into German identity took decades and is also a work in progress. Thus, it perplexes me to see liberals being so impatient about expanding national identities quickly. Crying "xenophobia" or "racism" every time, even on legitimate non-malicious pushback, is a dangerous tendency akin to the fable of the boy who cries wolf. It will only devalue the significance of these terms.

Strangely, neither country is learning from history. Refugees and economic migrants have been handled better elsewhere. India hosted millions of refugees from Bangladesh and Sri Lanka during their civil wars. They had temporary status and returned to their own nations after the wars ended. (Interestingly, illegal immigration from Bangladesh is now a hot button issue; I will return to this later.) Why can Germany not adopt similar policies? Why the irrational push to subvert German national identity to "assimilate" refugees? Contrast this with the hypocrisy of the rich Arab nations of the Persian Gulf!

Speaking of the Gulf, they also host millions of poor South Asian laborers. They are recruited with due process, earn income, pay taxes, and return to their own countries after their stints. Why can the USA not adopt such mechanisms for Latin American people (or any other nationals) pursuing low-skilled jobs in a way that does not disadvantage US nationals but also protects the rights/benefits of migrant workers (which the Gulf nations fail to do)? Why the irrational push to offer legal residence without due process for recruiting or economic checks? With such policies, the path to residence and citizenship need not be any different than other legal immigrants. Finally, why not help Central American nations improve their own economies instead of just hosting refugees or migrants?

2. Legal Codification of Identity Heterogeneity and Evolution


Umbrella identities are complex and have many moving parts. Legal recognition of sub-national identities and a clear codification of a fair balancing of power are essential for umbrella identities to work. Without such safeguards, a stable equilibrium is unlikely. India is a good example of such codification that defused the power of two major forms of sub-national identities: caste and language. India's Constitution rectifies the historical power imbalance inherent in the Hindu caste system with explicit quotas in education and jobs for so-called lower castes and some tribal groups. While this is an imperfect and evolving system, it has been instrumental in uplifting many marginalized groups. Of course, such quotas are resented by many so-called upper castes. These issues are being mitigated with restrictions to prevent abuse by the rich among so-called lower castes, as well as an interesting new quota for the poor among so-called upper castes.

As for language, the approach of organizing states based on language has largely proved successful in avoiding major internal ethno-linguistic conflicts in India. Indeed, attempts to subvert this organization have often led to violent pushback. For instance, the Indian state of Tamil Nadu saw massive protests in 1960s against the imposition of Hindi, an alien language for Tamil people, by the federal government. More recently, Assamese-speakers in Assam protested against the federal government's plans of offering citizenship to Bengali-speaking migrants from Bangladesh.

However, the Constitution mishandled another powerful sub-national identity: religion. Many Hindus resent the fact that religious minorities receive special rights that violate the right to equality. Indian Muslims, for instance, have the so-called Muslim Personal Law. Civil law is not uniform like it is in most secular nations. This led to unfair interventions by the federal government and courts in Hindu religious affairs, while minority religions were exempt. As an example, only recently was the ridiculous practice of "instance divorce" outlawed, helping advance gender equality for Muslim women. Yes, there is Islamophobia among many, but there is also legitimate disgruntlement among many others about such "appeasement" policies.

Such unfair special rights for religious minorities created/defended by misguided liberal policies are a major cause of the growth of Hindutva nationalism in India.

I also see no harm in offering special Constitutional recognition (without special rights) to the indigenous Hindu religions, akin to the indigenous cultures of other nations, e.g., the First Nations in Canada. Of course, this does not contradict secularism but acknowledges the Hindu roots of India's millennia-old secular umbrella identity that differs from French-style secularism. As another example, the Anglican church has special status in secular England.

Finally, national identities are not static; umbrella identities, all the more so. But explicitly recognizing heterogeneity and codifying the balance of power will help smooth out changes within complex umbrella identities. Due to historical power imbalances between groups, the USA is currently facing an identity crisis. I contend a major reason for this mess is that the US Constitution largely ignores identity. Faced with systemic biases and discrimination, black, Latino/Hispanic, and Native American communities in the USA remain unfairly disadvantaged economically and also politically. Perhaps legally codified forms of affirmative action for such groups and for poor white people can help improve the situation. Of course, this is no easy change because many Americans live in denial and delusion that the USA is an ideal meritocracy (it is not). But then again, achieving equality for women or black people in the USA was not easy either. And similar to India, I see no harm in offering special legal recognition (without special rights) to the Judeo-Christian religions (including the black church), the Native American religions, and the humanist/atheist philosophies that together gave birth to the USA's umbrella identity.

Concluding Remarks


A classic non-response to tackling racial inequities is being "color-blind." In the same way, being "identity-blind" will likely doom society into more fragmentation and conflict. While liberals are often torch bearers for celebrating myriad minority identities, intentionally or inadvertently dismissing majority identities is a recipe for disaster. The global right turn is less of a story of reinvigorated nationalism defeating liberalism and more of a re-examination of evolving umbrella identities. Even if we eliminate nations and create one world government, the thorny question of how to organize federal sub-structures is inevitable. Without an accommodation of identities in this context, even a unified world government will likely collapse (e.g., see the tussle in Spain/Catalonia).

In my opinion, (1) explicit recognition of all major identities, (2) legal codification of balancing of power, and (3) consistent enforcement of legal statutes that underpin national structures are together critical for umbrella national identities to work. Perhaps one day in the distant future, humanity will break free of the chains of tribalism and maybe even Darwinian evolution thanks to science, technology, and medicine. But until that day, prudence in the handling of identities within and across nations may help avoid a societal catastrophe.