“The Road to Somewhere: The New Tribes Shaping British Politics” – by David Goodheart
An insightful, penetrating book analyzing the cleavage between different groups in Britain (the so-called “tribes”) which account for Brexit.
Goodheart sums up the cleavage by describing the two tribes as “Anywheres” and “Somewheres,” denoting the relative contrast between the commitment to a global-European world view contrasted to a commitment that is more locally, nationalistic, and family-driven.
The cleavage he talks about also fairly describes a fundamental difference, in my view, between Trump supporters and Trump haters.
He analyzes the several key factors of differentiation. They include ones' relative commitment to free trade, to immigration, to family, and the depth of one’s commitment to his or her nation.
It was an eye-opener for me to realize how the ECM has evolved from initially being essentially a tariff-free customs union to what became the common economic space of a single market with the unified Euro currency (Maastricht in 1992) and the provision that the citizen of every European country is a citizen of every other European country. Particularly with the expansion of the ECM to Eastern and Central Europe, this resulted in a massive increase in immigration to Germany and to Britain. Thus immigration became the underlying issue which probably drove the positive Brexit vote.
It was an eye-opener for me to realize how the ECM has evolved from initially being essentially a tariff-free customs union to what became the common economic space of a single market with the unified Euro currency (Maastricht in 1992) and the provision that the citizen of every European country is a citizen of every other European country. Particularly with the expansion of the ECM to Eastern and Central Europe, this resulted in a massive increase in immigration to Germany and to Britain. Thus immigration became the underlying issue which probably drove the positive Brexit vote.
The political elite, better educated and higher income, failed to recognize and adequately respect the views of those who felt they were being left behind by this high rate of immigration. They also felt decisions which should be made at the national level had been abrogated by a very loosely formed and weakly governing European administrative structure.
Goodheart develops his analysis and argument in very insightful terms. For example, asserting “the moral equality of all humans is taken by many Global Villagers to mean the national borders and boundaries have become irrelevant and that any partiality to one’s fellow nationalist is morally flawed. But this is two completely separate things. It does not follow from the idea of human equality that we have the same obligations to all humans.”
We must recognize that “all humans are equal but they are not all equally important to us; our obligations and allegiances ripple out from family and friends to stranger fellow citizens in our neighborhoods and towns, then to nations and finally to all humanity. This does not have to be a narrow or selfish idea. People from Somewhere can be outward looking and internationalist, generous in their donations to charity..and concerned about the progress for the world’s poor countries but they also think it is perfectly reasonable that most European countries put their own citizens first and spend about 10 times more every year on domestic health services than on development aid."
Nor is this kind of particularism morally inferior to the more universalist views of some “Anywheres.” If everyone is my brother, then nobody is—my emotional and financial resources are spread too thin to make a difference. The novelist Jonathon Franzen puts it like this: “Trying to love all of humanity may be a worthy endeavor but, in a funny way, it keeps the focus on the self, on the self’s own moral or spiritual well-being. Whereas to love a specific person, and to identify with his or her struggles and joys as if they were your own, you have to surrender some of yourself.”
I cannot imagine it being said better than this.
There are good reasons why we should resist an overly atavistic sense of “exceptionalism” when it comes to the pride we take in our nation. We have a history loaded with events (slavery, treatment of the Native American) that we cringe at even as we recognize the reality such is the sad stuff of human history. However, that should not mask or discredit the rightness of having a strong, confident national identity. That in itself won’t solve our social and economic problems but it provides a set of values through which discussion can take place. It assumes certain shared norms and interests.
There are good reasons why we should resist an overly atavistic sense of “exceptionalism” when it comes to the pride we take in our nation. We have a history loaded with events (slavery, treatment of the Native American) that we cringe at even as we recognize the reality such is the sad stuff of human history. However, that should not mask or discredit the rightness of having a strong, confident national identity. That in itself won’t solve our social and economic problems but it provides a set of values through which discussion can take place. It assumes certain shared norms and interests.
We have such a template perhaps greater than any other nation in the world in the founding words of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Even as imperfectly lived, this commitment calls on us to do what we think is right based on all we have learned over time.
No comments:
Post a Comment