Is Morrissey A Racist?
The Times of London reports,
In [this week’s NME] Morrissey, who now lives in Los Angeles and Rome, says: “With the issue of immigration, it’s very difficult because, although I don’t have anything against people from other countries, the higher the influx into England, the more the British identity disappears. So the price is enormous.”
Of course, this is not unlike the argument made by David Goodheart, the editor of Prospect and a celebrated social-democratic intellectual.
And therein lies one of the central dilemmas of political life in developed societies: sharing and solidarity can conflict with diversity. This is an especially acute dilemma for progressives who want plenty of both solidarity (high social cohesion and generous welfare paid out of a progressive tax system) and diversity (equal respect for a wide range of peoples, values and ways of life). The tension between the two values is a reminder that serious politics is about trade-offs. It also suggests that the left’s recent love affair with diversity may come at the expense of the values and even the people that it once championed.
This isn’t to say that Morrissey is right. “British identity” is disappearing for a number of reasons, among them the reassertion of minority nationalisms. But it is undoubtedly true that contemporary Britain is more diverse than it was in 1950, the high tide of British egalitarianism, and that the new diversity has had a decidedly uneven impact.
My own view is that the influx has been mostly beneficial, and that the available alternatives were pretty unattractive. But I certainly don’t think Morrissey should be derided as racist for pointing out the obvious: the “British identity” of his youth, an interesting choice of words in light of his Irish origins (an English identity was presumably not an option), has in some real sense been undermined.
You know, it seems to me the strongest argument against immigration from poor countries to rich ones is that is almost always hurts the poor majority in the poor countries, by diluting the human capital left behind. This is most obvious in places like Africa, but it also applies to a country like Mexico if you look at the growth figures for per capita GDP in the two decades before 1965 (when mass immigration began)and the four decades since. Since for many liberals it is on largely moral grounds that they support immigration from the third world — “let those poor people in” — I am surprised this side of the issue almost never gets discussed. In the context of the Jim Watson episode for example, where it was much to the point.
— Luke Lea · Nov 30, 07:15 AM · #
I actually don’t think this is right — brain-circulation seems to be the rule, not brain-drain, at least in the cases of the big brain-drain countries (India, South Korea, the Philippines, etc.). And in the case of the Zambias, the domestic economy generally can’t absorb many skilled workers. Many of the poorest countries are, like Appalachia, simply unviable in a very profound way — emigration really is the most attractive option. Given that we live in a bordered world, we have to find second-best alternatives, like improving rural conditions and mitigating population growth by, for example, increasing female literacy.
Also, emigration from some countries, like Mexico, is not of the most skilled. In some cases it is the less skilled who are more likely to emigrate, and it is these economic migrants who raise the strongest objections.
— Reihan · Nov 30, 07:56 AM · #
morrisey is white. so he’s racist. QED ;-)
— razib · Nov 30, 09:12 AM · #
I’m with Reihan. The solution is not to keep high-skilled laborers by force in their own countries but to open borders and create the incentives for them to remain home by market-friendly capital flows to low-end countries, creating jobs for both low and, eventually, high skilled workers. The problem seems to be the availability of capital and an environment conducive to entrepreneurship, not the availability of manpower.
— isaac · Nov 30, 05:02 PM · #
Morrissey is right, and Isaac is either naive or disingenuous.
Morrissey is correct — when natives in the UK are outnumbered by immigrants, the culture disappears. Already in the US, the massive influx of Mexican immigrants (most of them illegal) has started to change the culture. The growth of Univision and Telemundo in markets where historically they have had little presence (such as Nashville) portends a major change in America’s historic culture. Expect a lot more bullfighting, soap operas with blonde, princess-y women and dark, ultra-macho men. A lot more Machismo and very little feminism.
Isaac is wrong since capital unless forced by the State, will always substitute cheap labor (particularly when it is available) for expensive labor. America was built on cheap land and expensive labor and unless measures are taken to prevent cheap labor from flooding the market the historic social peace America has enjoyed will surely go away.
This means massive border fences, deportations, work-status checks on employment, and so on. Anything else is wanting a free lunch and there is no such animal. You may prefer as a matter of public policy to favor wealthy and the employers over ordinary workers but you cannot escape the consequences. Which is massive social unrest on a scale not previously seen. Economic downturn with a massive influx of illegal aliens?
Wow am I the only one who sees that as a problem?
— Jim Rockford · Dec 1, 04:05 AM · #
Jim thanks for your kind comments. I generally agree with you on Morissey, but that doesn’t seem to be whats at issue.
As you will notice, I was not making an argument about US economic history. I was drawing on the very basic and more recent fact of the method by which a few states from the contemporary “developing” world have succeeded in increasing the living standards of their citizens – China, India, Brazil, etc. These have not done so through cheap land and expensive labor but, rather, through cheap land and cheap labor, unless I am sorely mistaken. They began developing through regulatory environments that were favorable to entrepreneurship and through influxes of foreign capital which created many low-skill jobs and a few high-skill jobs. It is from there that states can develop to more complex high-skill economies.
The distinction between the developmental history of the US and that of other states is old as the development debate itself – to assert that there is only one way of going about growing a country’s economy is foolishness and defies evidence.
Further, it is interesting that you accuse me of favoring the wealthy. If I am favoring the wealthy by advocating giving the neediest people jobs and reduced prices of critical goods worldwide through a removal of tariffs/subsidies, that is a novel idea indeed! You, sir, are the one who could be more accurately accused of favoring the global wealthy at the expense of the global poor. By advocating for the maintenance of artificially high wages and tariffs/subsidies you are doing just that. These measures condemn millions of people in the Global South to poverty in the name of protection of the local, rich economy.
Returning to the central issue, I am simply basing my assertions on observation that capital and a favorable regulatory environment are the two things most impeding job creation and, hence, economic development in the country where I live and work, which has one of the lowest HDI levels in the world and is, in many ways, a “worst case scenario”. The recent success stories from the developing world seem to support my suggestions.
— Isaac · Dec 1, 09:32 AM · #
“Girlfriend in a coma—I know, I know—it’s serious…” I believe he is more of a peddler-of-misery-ist.
— Joules · Dec 3, 08:23 PM · #