Fear And A Changing Attitude

It's interesting that “the party of the rich,” the Republican Party, is now attracting the poor – not the minorities, but the poor among the “majority” who fear a takeover by the “immigrants.” And interesting as well that the Democrats count among their followers the headliners in the movies and theater – the high-salaried “stars” – and the liberals, opposed to injustice, who believe they speak for the downtrodden, though among them are many of the wealthiest of our citizens – members of the fabled one percent. And they have added more to the campaigns of their favored candidates than the conservatives whom they blame for distorting the First Amendment and the political process with their money – however that's not really the point.

There is no denying the conservative nature of some of the leaders of industry, since free enterprise is one of the primary tools of their success. But now, in addition to private industry, large government and extensive regulation have provided jobs and income for large segments of our population – whether union officials or the executives who employ them; whether middle-class or higher. And the ninety-nine percent, and, even more so, those who claim to speak for them, demand increased taxation of the rich – of the one percent – although they are often of that class whether or not they admit it. In fact whether or not they recognize it.

Around the globe, however, there is a swing toward a conservative mindset that encompasses the lower middle-class and poor of many nations. It has many causes, but nationalism, religion, and economy are its tap roots. The concept of Eurabia, however applicable it may have been a decade ago, has become a more prominent issue as migration from a war-torn Middle East has increased recently. And the populations of many of the affected recipient countries involved have become more and more and more concerned. And more and more conservative.

The recent “Brexit” vote is illustrative of the renaissance of isolationism which is one of the hallmarks of the new attitude. Patriotism and xenophobia accompany it, with increasing fear and rejection of the immigrants. In part this reflects an economic concern – there is fear that the market will be flooded with unemployed “foreigners” who will take jobs from the homeborn. And they'll change the nature of the society. Whether or not the fears reflect reality, they're real. Elections in many of the involved countries demonstrate the “rightward” turn of the public.

There is also worry that among the immigrants are some who actually threaten their new homes. War has raged in the Middle East throughout history, and terrorism is a feature of the last few decades. That terrorism has spilled over into nations around the world, and the perpetrators almost invariably have connections to the Middle East – to (contrary to political correctness) Islamic governments, clerics, and organizations. With very few exceptions they are Muslims.

Those involved in violence are a minute minority of Muslims everywhere, but their impact, physical and political, has been tremendous – causing fear everywhere, and sometimes even retaliation. (Retaliation, when it occurs, is generally irrational and based on ethnicity rather than ethos. It usually has nothing to do with the attitudes and actions of the victims, only with their ancestry.) Anxiety about the risks associated with the immigrants may be overstated, but it is increasing, and probably is an intentional result of the terrorists' efforts. Whatever increases tensions between nations benefits the radicals. Islamophobia may result from terrorism, but it also results from people's fear of terrorism. And since Islamophobia's existence is “proof,” for those already convinced, that the society is evil, the terrorists gain from inducing it.

Small as the risk may be, however, it cannot be ignored. And neither our protectors (military and police) nor our politicians are likely to ignore it. Actions taken by our protectors are usually aimed at the benefit of society, while the words and actions of politicians are generally undertaken in order to obtain personal gain. The populism that xenophobia can arouse is a powerful political tool for them.

Perhaps the elimination of the terrorists, by whatever means is necessary, is a step the world should be taking. Defending them as understandable victims of an unjust West only validates their claims and justifies their acts. Many of our own people insist, however, that we shouldn't stoop to their level. It's not “who we are,” and doing so allows “them” to win. (What we're doing now, though, doesn't constitute a win for us, nor make it likely that there will be one.)

On the other hand, the ideas of survival, self-defense, and a “just” war need to be worked out. There is no virtue in suicide or extending our necks to the sword. That's not who we are either. Turning the other cheek to tyrants is tantamount to approving their actions. We reject the role of “world policeman” viewing it as a pejorative designation, but isolationism isn't the answer. We cannot as easily reject our responsibility to help those who need us – though it sometimes seems to be national policy to do so.

Perhaps finding a middle ground between their ways and ours is the best approach. Perhaps some will view that as a compromise with evil. Whatever we decide, however, that decision should come soon. Whether or not we allow it, they're winning. We're turning to the right largely because of the perceived threats of immigration. The “sympathetic,” if naïve approach of so many of our citizens, needs to be rethought. There is a new alliance of conservatives with many of the poor who fear the changes that are occurring around the world and are beginning to speak out. If, as we claim, we oppose injustice, its time for us to listen to their concerns.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Following the writing of this essay and its publication, a terrorist (“no terrorist connections” but a pattern familiar in Israel) drove a truck into a crowd and then started shooting them. It was apparently a “lone wolf” attack making prevention of similar attacks difficult. But it emphasizes the need to understand both the psychology of the killer and of the theology that promotes such horrors. If it happened in Israel, it's likely to happen elsewhere.