On xenophobia, French election, et al...

It's one day from the French election.  It's hard not to draw certain similarity between the French candidates lineup, with that of the GOP lineup in the 2016 election (and of course we know how that 2016 election went, with Trump planted solidly in the White House now).

Given the "surprising" result from the 2016 election in US, with Trump coming out on top of Hillary Clinton in that supposedly unloseable election of ours, it's understandable how high the amount of apprehension in the French election. Should Marine Le Pen win, and the National Front takes over, a lot of things will fall on the wayside. As a founding member of the EU project, as the second larget economy inside EU (given that UK is quitting for good in two years), Le Pen's declaration to quit EU is nothing short of blasphemy, essentially declaring death knell to the EU, leaving Germany alone to hold up the tent pole of the whole EU which is untenable. 

Much good has come out of the cooperation among the pan-European countries after WWII, as they learnt the lesson and the post-war world order pushes for more integration to reduce future conflicts that had given Europe (and the world) two world wars. Europe, and the world has prospered with it for more than sixty years.  Unfortunately to Europe, the 2008 meltdown has exposed much flaws from the EU projects, that this ship sails well in good weather, but fares rather poorly in bad times. There are the poor cousins, like Greece, who enjoyed the largess, effectively borrowing on the good credit of Euro but without doing anything to transform or improve its economy, so much so that when times turn, they have no way to turnaround except to ask for bailouts (and more bailouts).  But this, is only the start of the EU unraveling. 

Add salt to the injury, is the mess arising from Middle east, resulting in the rise of Islam radicalism, chaotic civil wars that displace millions that have since rushed the European shore to get in, rather than camping out at their home country's border, in the hope of returning home one day. While one could argue that the initial welcome mat that Angela Merkel had made the refugee crisis worse, by encouraging even those who might not otherwise have considered joining the refugee line to also try to go to Europe to seek a better life, and livelihood.  Still, even if the refugee numbers were to be half of what it has been in reality, it would still be a very noticeable number.  

When you have huge numbers of Muslims coming in, coupled with domestic terrorist attacks that come from the same ethnic groups that look and sound the same in appearance, having the religion, it's hard not to jump to conclusion.  Of course everyone knows that not all Muslims are ISIS, and many a Muslim is just as peaceful and hardworking and law-abiding. But how could anyone tell, on the outset? Short answer is, we can't.

And then you have countries like France and Belgium that have an increasing population of Muslim descent that fails to assimilated (or that the society does not allow them upward-mobility social opportunity to assimilate), you have a ticking time bomb with a big portion of populace that is marginalized.  No wonder the idealized Islamic heaven appeals to the second- and third-generation Muslim community aspiring to fight for radical groups like ISIS.

This is the sort of outcomes that is expected, though highly undesirable. It's the natural result of failure in policy in France and Belgium in dealing with the issues upfront. The Marine Le Pen-way of dealing with such policy failure, is to stop Muslim population from growing, by halting/reducing future migrants with "undesirable" traits (eg. religion, country of origin) from getting in to France. But that does nothing to deal with the already-marginalized Muslim population within its border that are now full French citizens). This is also the same approach/rationale behind Trump's border wall, and the Australian policy change to make citizenship tests harder for everyone.  But there is no getting around the fact that Muslim population already amounts to 7.5% of its population in France, and is only going to grow, given the trajectory of far higher birth rate of Muslim community and the low birth rate of everyone else.

Generally, public discourse on the subject has always been binary (and highly simplistic). You're either with us, if you are ok with more immigration, refugees relocation, because then, you must be a liberal, progressive, and by default, a citizen of the world (the future!). OR, you must be against us, if you are against more immigration, in which case you must be a bigot, xenophobic, a nativism loser.

I can tell you, I highly resent that kind of binary label.

From an economic perspective, while it is true that the "losers" in general are likely to be lower-educated locals that lack the skills to adapt to a changing job markets (where low skills jobs are increasingly relocated to other low-cost countries), it is thus not going to help their cause to shift the blame to immigrants since the disappearance of their jobs is more a policy of corporate titans deciding to reduce costs, thanks to globalization. To that end, Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the very many liberal elites in telling these lower-class cohorts that "your jobs are not coming back!" will not go down well at all, even if it's a fact. Blaming these folks as xenophobic (ah, the labeling again) and bigots, without addressing their economic concerns, is ultimately what dooms HRC's 2016 presidential ambitions. This is the liberal's head-in-the-sand approach.

From a cultural perspective, shouting down those whose identity used to define a country, without addressing their concerns, is another ostrich approach. We were told to say, there will be more immigrants, they will be totally different from you in terms of culture and belief and practice, and you just have to accept it. We were told their culture and practice, however repugnant, will not take hold in our society, but is that really? When we live in a democracy, we know that whichever ethnic or demographic group(s) gain majority, will get to be decision-maker. And so, if your country will one day become dominated by a Muslim majority, what will that look like?  Ok, maybe France won't look immediately like Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran. But would it look like a Turkey or Egypt? It's hardly a prospect that anyone looks forward to, but it can certainly happen. Democracy is a very fragile thing, nothing of it should be taken for granted, as we can see in the recent power grab in the Turkey election.  All you need, is a slim majority.  There is no guarantee that France or any other country will not one day devolve into that prospective. For the liberal elites to deny that, is another head-in-the-sand approach.

Surely there can be other ways to address these demographics trajectory.  But not dealing with the issues, not even acknowledging it to be a potential issue, is simply foolhardy.  Stopping immigration in wholesale manner is foolish. But, rather than the dismissing far-right politicians like Marine Le Pen off-handedly, we would all be better served to acknowledge that fact, and to ensure a more balanced approach in immigration policy, to ensure a true diversity in a multi-cultural society. Assimilation does not mean having to forego and give up one's cultural and ethnic identity, but neither should it mean clinging (yes, Obama is totally right on using that word!) onto all of its cultural and religious practice, good or bad. Afterall, if new migrants do not want to change at all, why move to a new country in the first place?

As an immigrant myself, having lived in four different continents, with couple of citizenship/passports in my backpocket, I can quite easily attest to this commonsense approach. I thus do not automatically see everything that Trump or Le Pen said as bigotry (and there are plenty of times when they truly are), there are certain policy and ideas they advocated that do make sense to me.  The current political climate of binary easy-labeling anyone does not facilitate sensible political discourse. If there is one thing that far-rights and radical left should agree on, and if they truly admire Reagan, it is that they should aspire to how Reagan and Tip O'Neil had managed to work together, despite their differences. Compromises can be a good thing, it's a necessary art that GOP and Dems need to learn again.

I haven't visited France for some time, so I can't get the pulse of its voters. If main media and elites take voters for granted (as Hillary Clinton and Dems did in 2016), they are bound to lose, and Le Pen will rise. Then again, maybe it's not that bad a thing (!?!). Who knows.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By the way, why is it that no one blames any Asian countries for failing to diversify?  Has anyone ever condemned China or Japan for not accepting any refugees from the Middle East? Ok, one could argue that the mess in Middle East was a direct result from centuries of colonialism, and foreign meddling by Russia, US, and more. But hey, isn't this supposed to be for humanitarian reasons in accepting refugees relocation? Why the finger-pointing to western countries alone? Why is it ok for Asian countries to preserve their cultural identity and purity, but not the West?

On Marxism v Leninism (v socialism)...

Thought I'll record this in my journal, an email I sent to my kids and nephews, coming of age in this Trump world -

there have always been confusions, about marxism versus leninism (versus socialism and communism).  most people don't know or care about splitting hair on what the difference(s) are, if any.  this short overview serves to highlight some of the main differences. 

while aspiring to some higher ideal of socialism and communism, the proposition of marx/engels versus lenin (and much worse so, stalin) lies more in the actual execution of it.  this was where the notion of constant "class struggle" (????) came from, so infamously and notoriously played out during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s in china under chairman mao, but in the end, even mao was just perpetuating an elite ruling class (aka dictatorship) over the working mass (the proletariat class) even to the present day china, which was advocated by lenin a century ago.

as we know now that communism and socialism don't work on a large scale (as evident in the collapse of the soviet empire of USSR, repudiating the whole socialist experiment in the past century), all that is left now around the world, is some variants of capitalism, be it state-owned (directed) capitalism like china, or the more free-wheeling capitalism (as favored by US), and some combination of both, as practiced by more pluralistic countries in europe and in canada.  

but as the widening gap of wealth between rich and poor is getting worse around the world, we know that the basic premise behind marxism is still quite alive and well.  the question is, HOW to address that workers exploitation and to attain a more equitable society, with or without resorting back to socialism.  we know for a fact that most, if not all, people do not want socialism in its pure form.  yet, capitalism, in its purist form, is not the answer either.

quite recently, i watched a documentary "The Men Who Built America" (featuring robber barons in the century past, including vanderbilt, rockefeller, carnegie, ford, jp morgan, along with edison and tesla).  the documentary isn't the best, but the conclusion of it, was very interesting.  it precisely illustrates how the different notions that the abovementioned link had played out in US at the turn of the 20th century, of how these robber barons ruthlessly built their empire, treated workers very poorly, and then became "enlightened" (rockefeller and carnegie, in particular, became significant philanthropists, with their foundations doing work even to the present day).  the talk of ford, via the innovation of both Model T, manufacturing process, and the practice to "spread the wealth", which was effectively the start of the middle class expansion in US, was particularly interesting.  it was precisely this "spreading of wealth" that became beneficial to both the employer/industrialist (ford) and his employees, so much so that people have come to the belief that being a worker does not automatically mean being exploited, and they can still lead a decent life. this notion has become the premise of the "American Dream" before and since WWII, that if u work hard, u can succeed.  this was true in the days when US in the post-WWII days, but as the manufacturing sector falters, there goes this American Dream.

we should note that china (the chief beneficiary of the offshoring of US manufacturing might) has never achieved the level of enlightenment the same way ford had delivered to his workers in the decades past.  granted that the living standards in china were very low 30 years or so ago before Deng Xiaoping opened the door of china, and having a factory job back then had indeed become a ticket to attending "middle class" in china, but such gains (as much as it is in US) had stalled.  young people in china in general don't want dirty factory work, the pay is not high enough (well, from today's standards), and there is not enough "middle class" jobs in other white-collar sectors that allow them to segue their way into an even better standard of living (as seen in the west). the copycat notion of the "China Dream" (as Xi has shamelessly copied from the "American Dream") could well be setting itself up for failure.  case in point:  just look at what happens to the rise and fall of US factory workers.  china has replicated the success of the manufacturing sector in 30 yrs, that had taken US almost 70 yrs to attain.  much as china has copied the model, the process, the technology from the west in its rush to the top, china has also been mindful of the failures that US had suffered.  from here on out, as china's economy is pretty much on equal footing with US now, with china being number 2 in world economy already, there is no longer a "playbook" that china can copy from. 

we do know that, when it works, it works well.  but as a society, as a country (and i'm talking about ANY country, not just US), can people afford to wait for some enlightened billionaire philanthropist(s) to come along, like ford and carnegie did, to deliver the working mass from "living hell"?  (well, "living hell" is more hyperbole at this point, but in the century past, workers' working and living conditions were really like hell.)  most people don't want to wait, which is the reason why they opt for Donald Trump.  that's the reason why even if trump is so out of touch with the working poor (given his immense wealth), people still put their trust in him, for in trump, those voters who are hoping trump is the "elightened one."

i sure hope they are right, though i'm not holding my breath.

-mom