Diversity Is Strength. It`s Also The Worst Sort Of Welfare State

Intellectuals as politically contrasting as

David Goodhart
, editor of the fine British centre-left
journal

Prospect
, and

Frank Salter
, the perceptive rightist political
scientist, have argued that immigration undermines the
welfare state by sapping solidarity among fellow
citizens.

It`s not a coincidence that social insurance programs
began in

homogenous Bismarckian Germany
. Nor is it an
accident that today they are perhaps most overwhelmingly
popular in

Finland
, the only Western European country with
hardly any immigrants.

Goodhart`s cover story in the June 2006 issue of
Prospect
, "Put
Out More Flags: A Case for Progressive Nationalism
"
,
is a follow-up to his much-discussed 2004 essay

"Too Diverse?"
He warned the British Labour
Party that mass immigration threatens

white working class
support for the welfare state by
importing

too many freeloaders
. Goodhart was expressing, for
different reasons, the same insight that

Milton Friedman
offered in 1999: "You cannot
simultaneously have

free immigration
and a

welfare state.
"

Now, Goodhart notes:


"The welfare state was
designed in an era of

closed borders
and a more instinctive sense of
national solidarity."

He defends nationalism against the fashionable
post-nationalism of the Labourite chattering classes:


"Alongside the hatred
it has generated, it is also responsible for many of the
most positive aspects of modern societies—the idea of

equal citizenship
, the readiness to share with and
make sacrifices for stranger-citizens."

Many on America`s Establishment Right see this corrosion
of trust among citizens as a virtue of multiculturalism.

Jonah Goldberg
even asserted in National Review
that "immigrants
fight off socialism
".

Nonsense, of course. Immigrant-destination cities in
America, from

19th Century New York
to 21st Century

Santa Ana
, have hardly been lacking in government
largesse flowing from an ethnic spoils system.

But does immigration-fueled diversity decrease or
increase government spending?  

The unfortunate truth: diversity appears to lead to the
worst of both worlds:

  • less spending on
    honest programs benefiting those who need it;

  • more on
    ethically-dubious giveaways to those who don`t.

In countries like the United States still blessed with a
"market-dominant
majority
"
, heightened racial heterogeneity means
less support for social insurance programs for the least
fortunate citizens combined with more race-based
handouts for the best-connected.

As
Goodhart noted in 2004, pervasive Nordic-style social
insurance schemes have flopped in America because of the
lack of solidarity across ethnic lines.

And
also, to be frank, because

blacks
,

American Indians
, and to a somewhat lesser extent,

Hispanics
have shown that they get corrupted faster
by the "moral hazard" of social insurance than do
whites.


Sweden
began its welfare state in 1935, and,
amazingly, it hasn`t completely wrecked the

Swedish work ethic
yet. Although American free
marketeers have been gleefully anticipating the

imminent demise
of the Swedish economy as far back
as I can remember in the 1970s, last week`s GDP figures
showed that Sweden grew

4.1 percent
over the last year.

In
contrast, in the mid-1960s when liberal northern states
in America imported Swedish ideas about raising welfare
for single mothers to generous levels, crime and
illegitimacy rates among blacks shot upward almost
immediately.

This
quickly alienated white voters. The Democratic
Presidential candidates` share of the overall vote
plummeted from 61 percent in 1964 to 43 percent in 1968.

Here in
the U.S., the big increase in diversity from immigration
has not yet led to much in the way of increased
tax-and-spend redistribution policies on the national
level. (Instead, President Bush has pursued an

"Après moi le deluge"

strategy of cut-tax-and-spend.)

This
pattern, though, can be seen in some states.

New Mexico
, which has always been ethnically
diverse, is notorious for its economic fecklessness and
dependence on the federal treasury. After six
generations as Americans, the Hispanics of New Mexico
continue to exhibit traditional Hispanic attitudes
toward political economy, suggesting that the miracle
cure of "assimilation", which is supposed to
solve all our problems with immigrants Real Soon Now …
won`t.

(A
similar culturally-determined corruption is also coming
to the once famously honest civil servants of Britain,
thanks to immigration. The Guardian has just
reported


"A
secret high-level Metropolitan police report has
concluded that Muslim officers are more likely to become
corrupt than white officers because of their

cultural
and

family backgrounds
. The document, which has been
seen by the Guardian, has caused outrage among
ethnic minorities within the force, who have labeled it
racist and proof that there is a gulf in understanding
between the police force and the wider Muslim community.
The document was written as an attempt to investigate
why complaints of misconduct and corruption against
Asian officers are 10 times higher than against their
white colleagues."
)
[Secret
report brands Muslim police corrupt

| Fury over internal Met study which says Asians need
special training
, The Guardian, By Sandra
Laville and Hugh Muir,  June 10, 2006]

At the
federal level in the U.S., taxes on the rich keep going
down. Partly, this is because the Hispanic vote is still
much smaller than is widely imagined (only 6.0% in the
2004 election according to the U.S. Census Bureau). And,
also, this is because the parties are increasingly in
effect turning into the White Party and the Not White
Party, with the more racially-unified GOP doing a more
effective job of clinging to power than the more
ethnically-fractured Democrats.


Lee Kwan Yew
of Singapore noted recently:


"In
multiracial societies, you don`t vote in accordance with
your economic interests and social interests, you vote
in accordance with race and religion."

Maybe
that`s just his excuse for running a one-party state.

But at
least Singapore is an honest one-party state, As America
has gotten more diverse, though, we`ve seen a trend back
toward an older form of politics reminiscent of the days
of Robber Barons and

Tammany Hall,
when various elites struck deals with
each other for their mutual benefit and the public be
damned. More diversity seems to lead to more race-based
payouts for the upper reaches of society.

For
example, diverse Chicago has been a corrupt one-party
city for generations. In the Windy City, the standard
method for persuading so many immigrant groups to
cooperate politically has been to cut the leaders of
each bloc into a

slice of the graft
. (And Chicago is now as much of a
hereditary dynasty as Singapore, with the Daleys, father
and son, running it for 38 of the last 51 years.)

There`s
so much

romanticized worship
of the

Ellis Island immigration wave
in the American media
these days that it`s heretical to mention that massive
European immigration a century ago was a blow to honest
republican rule at the local level. It`s hard to run a
multiethnic city without venal machine politics.

The
Progressive Movement of roughly 1890-1930 was a
two-front struggle against the big business bosses on
the one hand and the immigrant political bosses on the
other. But that latter fact has been shoved down the
memory hole in the orgy of Ellis Island nostalgia.

A
century ago, Republican governor Hiram Johnson

rewrote the California constitution
on

Progressive principles.
This system based on civic
virtue worked well as long as California was populated
primarily by

Midwestern transplants.
But as the state has become

more diverse,
it has become less governable. Indeed,
California would probably be better off now with a
corrupt Chicago-style ethnic machine than with trying to
make do with Johnson`s system.

Right
across the U.S., as class-based ideologies have
declined, they`ve been replaced with

ethnocentric politics
where

crafty leaders
line their pockets by portraying
themselves as the paladins of their people.

In the
last third of the 20th Century, for example, Jesse
Jackson perfected a

shakedown
scheme in which he

threatens to unleash black protestors
against rich
corporations for purported racial offenses. The
deep-pocketed targets then buy Jesse off by giving
no-bid contracts to various black entrepreneurs
affiliated with him, who then kick donations back to
Jesse`s civil rights organizations. Although Jesse and
his black millionaire friends do very well out of this
lucrative perpetual motion machine, the rest of the
black population gets nothing tangible … except the
vicarious pleasure of watching a few of their own stick
it to The Man.

Similarly, from 1969 onward, the U.S. has indulged in
ethnic quotas for public and private jobs, university
admissions, government contracts, and the like on a vast
scale. This has done little for the lower half of the
minority populations but much for the upper half.

For
example, in the University of Michigan law school case
of 2003, the Supreme Court

upheld ethnic quotas
for admission to postgraduate
professional schools. There was strong pressure on the
Court from university presidents and corporate CEOs to
validate these widespread racial preference programs. In
the end, the
Bush Administration effectively

saved affirmative action
through its

briefs to the Supreme Court
—essentially as part of
its Hispanic outreach a.k.a. bribery program.

And yet

barely half
the blacks and Hispanics in the country
graduate from

high school.
Only a small percentage of them apply
to the kind of selective colleges where quotas matter.
To the top 10% of blacks and Hispanics, college quotas
are a big deal, but for the other 90%, they are
irrelevant.

Nevertheless, preserving

college quotas,
not

improving K-12 education
for minorities, was the
pressing issue for Civil Rights Establishment in
America. The leaders` interests trumped their
followers`.

As

Francis Fukuyama
famously pointed out in 1989, the
wars of ideology are over and the capitalist welfare
state has won. He was

wrong
, however, to call that "The
End of History
"
.

Instead, after the 200-year ideological interlude from
1789 to 1989, history has merely reverted to the old,
endless struggle over

"Who? Whom?"

Within the loose parameters of the capitalist welfare
state, there is endless room for the exploitation by the
clever of the clueless—of all races.

And this unedifying process is exacerbated by
immigration-driven diversity.


[Steve Sailer [email
him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and


movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.
His website


www.iSteve.blogspot.com
features his daily
blog.]