Conservative Ideology and Socialism Two Ways

Welcome friends!

I must apologize for the breakdown in my scheduling the last few weeks.  It’s been a little crazy around here and I’m not just talking about President Trump and the Republican Party.  So let’s make up for lost time and dive right in shall we?  What caught my eye this week was an amusing online comment about wealthy American “socialists” who live in gated communities and high rises not caring that immigrants and “black” people are taking jobs from hapless “white” people.  Always fun to read these sorts of posts if one can get past the fractured syntax and inventive spelling because it’s a little window into how other people see the world and by other people I mean in this instance people one might not otherwise engage in conversation in everyday life.  Ah yes the beauty of the internet.  Bringing people together, right?  Of course I’m not entirely sure if I was connecting with a semi-literate American redneck or a professional Russian troll still learning the English language but anyway they seem to get along quite well these days so doesn’t really matter much to me.  I am on the other hand always interested in how conservatives use and understand others (such as Russian trolls for example) to use the term “socialism.” It occurred to me although all conservatives are trained from early childhood to despise “socialists” with a passion verging on clinical paranoia they quite often display certain socialistic tendencies themselves.  Ironic.  Anyway, I thought I’d say a few words about that this week.

When American conservatives excoriate  domestic “socialists” what they have in mind is what you and I might call liberal / progressive democrats who support social programs designed to help struggling people.  I’m sure we all understand the haughty Ayn Randian elitist conservatives who despise that sort of thing on the principle if struggling people are destined to die they should get on with it and reduce the surplus population.  That type of conservative has been common both here and abroad for a very long time most likely from at least the time of the ancient pharaohs.  I talk about those conservatives often enough but they’re not really the focus of this post.  No, there’s another species of conservative in the USA that is more of the economically struggling salt of the earth “populist” variety.  It’s a running joke of course the latter group of conservatives finds common cause with the former group because the former group clearly views the latter group as little more than a mildly amusing species of vermin they need to play with in the name of political expediency until they manage to sufficiently shrink and neutralize democratic government to render such distasteful interactions unnecessary.  It may seem superficially curious these struggling working class conservatives would have such a rabid hatred of the people who have their best interests at heart.  Some of these conservatives are convinced liberal “socialists” are only concerned about struggling immigrants and racial minorities and funneling resources to them in particular.  Humorous of course because although there may be a few programs specifically tailored to immigrants and racial minorities most of the programs under consideration are means tested programs available to all.  Others are convinced the reason some people are struggling is that liberal “socialists” are trying to help them and if we just got rid of the programs designed to deal with these social problems the problems themselves would evaporate.  Also rather comical because historically of course the social problems predate the programs designed to address them and there is no reason at all to suppose something has changed in the interim that would prevent them reappearing if we no longer attempt to address them.  But that’s the story fed to them by the traditional conservative elite that has never seen the need to deal with social problems or I suppose more accurately has always refused even to acknowledge social problems as such and that’s the story they’re going with.

The funny thing about recent developments of course is conservatives of the struggling salt of the earth variety have re-discovered their own version of socialism in the guise of former presidential advisor Mr. Bannon’s pet project“economic nationalism.” Many conservatives seem to be struggling to recognize this agenda for what it is.  So let’s just set the record straight.

The non-socialist traditional conservative elitist response to white working class Americans losing their jobs is a big shrug of the shoulders.  So what?  What happens to you or your family is none of our concern.  We’re not your nannies.  If you lose out in the modern competitive economy that’s your problem not ours.  If insufficient jobs are available on the free market then it’s right and fitting you not have a job.  You should just go someplace and die.  Did an immigrant take your job?  So what?  You competed and the immigrant was either willing to work for less or had some other advantage.  Did some sort of minority take your job?  So what?  No one is entitled to a job.  The non-socialist approach is open borders, free movement of labor, free markets both domestically and internationally, and whatever happens happens.

What one may call the traditional liberal or at least neoliberal brand of “socialism” is to have the same sort of free market for labor and goods and services traditional conservatives embrace but to acknowledge and attempt to address the rather obvious distributional issues associated with that approach by coming up with programs to help people who may be losing out or temporarily struggling.  We’re talking about help for people having trouble finding a job.  Help with education.  Help with housing or food if necessary.  The most drastic option is probably spending tax dollars to generate jobs that would otherwise not be forthcoming on the market.  As many people have pointed out these fixes aren’t the same as dumping money down a hole in the ground as many traditional conservatives might suggest.  When we find a way to get money to struggling people they spend it, consumer demand increases, and the economy inevitably grows.  People are a lot happier as well and that has to count for something.

The new / old “economic nationalism” implicitly acknowledges the drawbacks of the free market but instead of allowing it to function and trying to fix problems after they appear it attempts to manipulate the conditions surrounding the market to head off potential problems.  Examples of this approach would be laws to buy only products made in America (regardless of whether those products are the best or the cheapest) or to prevent companies relocating to other countries (despite the potential competitive advantages of doing so) or to prevent companies from automating or using labor saving technology (despite the potential cost savings).  Depending on the “society” this form of socialism is meant to address it might involve preventing people immigrating or I suppose even ensuring that members of some ethnic or racial groups get certain jobs, etc.  As any traditional conservative or neoliberal will tell you these types of market restrictions and manipulations come at a cost.  One may be unable to get the cheapest or most qualified worker.  One may lose out relative to foreign competitors.  The problems are in the same category as those associated with other more common market manipulations like minimum wage laws and union contracts.  However, this rigging of the market approach is one way to keep everyone or at least some people in the game.  Nothing is free in this world including trying to help struggling people.  And to the extent we’re getting money to struggling people we may at least still get the consumer demand effect.  My point in this post is not to adjudicate which type of socialism works best or makes the most sense.  It’s simply to point out they’re both forms of what is essentially socialism.  They’re both predicated on the proposition we should care what happens to other people in our “society” however we choose to define it.  We should care if our neighbor has a job.  We should care if people can afford housing.  Other people matter.

Now if one is truly opposed to socialism that’s fine with me.   Everyone is free to hold his or her own opinion on the matter.  I tend to think what happens to other people in our society is important.  Other people should have jobs and a way to make a living.  We need to keep thinking and working until we have a system that does that.  But that’s just me.  If one supports one type of socialism over another that’s also fine with me.  As I just explained I’m not entirely sure what would work best myself.  But you know what I really can’t abide?  Someone who rants on and on about the evils of socialism from one side of his or her mouth all the while promoting a form of socialism out the other side.  We’re not going to get anywhere at that rate.  Can we at least agree to try to talk sensibly about these issues?

Muslim Immigration

About time we had some good news right?  Seems our friends in France have managed to beat back the always unpleasant Le Pen clan and reaffirm their commitment not only to all things French as they certainly should but also to Europe and even more expansively the world.  After the UK packed it in and the USA abruptly took leave of its senses and joined the circus I really wondered if the Europeans would follow suit and go on holiday as well.  Thankfully that does not appear to have been the case despite our good frenemies the Russians trying to pull a Trump on them at the last moment.  Got to love the French.  Tougher than they seem sometimes.  Not all brie and a nice bottle of wine that’s for sure.  Anyway, I thought this might be a good excuse to take one more shot at the whole immigration issue as it appears to be a pretty big deal overseas.  Well, here too I suppose but not really the same thing.  Folks in Europe are a lot closer to all the mayhem going on in the Middle East right now, have done a lot more to help the refugees from that benighted region of the world, and have been trying to assimilate people a lot more foreign and sometimes dangerously anti-social than the occasional bad hombre arriving in the USA from our long suffering neighbor to the south.  So let me say a few more words this week about immigration with Muslim immigration as the specific example.

First let me just say this issue I feel has nothing or should have nothing really to do with how one personally feels about the religion of Islam... Sorry but only selected archived (previous year) posts are currently available full text on this website.  All posts including this one are available in my annual anthology ebook series available at the Amazon Kindle Bookstore for a nominal fee.  Hey, we all need to make a buck somehow, right?  If you find my timeless jewels of wisdom amusing or perhaps even amusingly irritating throw me a bone now and then.  Thank you my friends!

Immigration And Conservatism Old And New

Welcome friends!

Did you read about President Trump’s new national health care policy?  The one he crowed about so frequently during the campaign?  The terrific plan that does everything Obamacare does but much cheaper?  No?  Not surprising.  No one else has either.  Turns out President Trump never really had any such policy in mind and at least according to one of his aides as reported in the papers recently was never really very interested in health care policy anyway.  Didn’t really need anyone to tell me that.  You may recall a few weeks back the president delivered the memorable gag line, “Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.”  He apparently just assumed some Republican or other would have a workable plan.  Alas, no.  Paul Ryan and the leadership of the Republican Party, who have spent the better part of the last decade talking about it, couldn’t come up with a politically viable health care policy when the time came to present one.  So what was the practical result of all the conservative grandstanding and speechifying on the unmitigated disaster Obamacare apparently represented and continues to represent to them?  Nothing.  Rather predictably an irate President Trump put down his golf clubs for a few moments to search for some suitable scapegoat and after first trying on the Democratic Party and finding that didn’t really pass the laugh test instead took aim at the stridently ideological and impractical far right of his own party.  As far as the actual issue of health care he petulantly declared his intention to “let Obamacare explode,” which most knowledgeable people feel is unlikely to happen without active sapping.  Hopefully the Democrats and the pitifully small number of moderate Republicans in Congress can fend them off and make any needed changes to the program to ensure it continues to help Americans get the health care they need.  But none of that is really what I wanted to discuss today.  Bam!  That’s what they call a pivot in political circles!  No, what I’ve been really been wanting to say a few syllables about is immigration and in particular illegal immigration in light of the new political landscape ushered in by Mr. Trump and his Trumpkins.  Not only because it’s a big issue right now in both the USA and Europe but also but even more interestingly to me because there seems to be something a little bit odd about how we’ve been discussing it here in the USA anyway.  Substance is always interesting to me but if you read this blog at all you’ll know what really sets me on edge is when people talk funny.  So let’s take that up this week shall we?

Historically American conservatives of the economic variety have supported not just your garden variety controlled immigration that pretty much everyone supports but the much more radical notion of the free movement of labor.  They’ve long been enemies of collectivist thinking in any form including that involving nations, societies, neighborhoods, unions, and so on because they feel the only proper unit of analysis for any reputable theory of social ethics is the individual.   To economic conservatives who people are and where they come from is not meant to matter.  What matters is their role in the economic system.  Owners of capital.  Workers.  CEOs.  Fending off thinking of groups is where all the conservative talk of creeping socialism and democracy run amok and the ostensibly dire need to restrict government and so on comes from.  In this influential wing of American conservatism one’s fellow citizen should be of no more interest to one than any other random potential worker in any other country in the world.  According to their social philosophy based on a sort of dumbed down version of neoclassical economic theory everything is best handled by the free market and the way to facilitate a free market is free trade as far as the outputs of production and the free movement of labor as far as the inputs of production.  The issue they find compelling is not how well the peons of any particular nation are doing but total output.  If the largely mythical perfectly competitive free markets can be achieved and maintained then we needn’t worry about how other people are doing.  They will logically be doing just as well as they ought to be doing.  I say this idea is based on a dumbed down version of neoclassical economic theory because as I’ve explained in many previous posts that theory doesn’t really say that at all.  In its modern form it sidesteps distributional issues entirely and is thus not meant to provide a basis for a complete theory of social ethics and is indeed logically incapable of doing so.  The all important missing bits of economic conservative ideology that explain why we needn’t be concerned with the welfare of other people do not come from economic theory but from some other unspecified source.  If you find out where let me know.  I’ve wondered about that for some time myself.

The other traditional wing of conservatism here in the USA is of course social conservatism, which is a different beast entirely.  Social conservatives as one might suppose are much more attuned to societal issues but rather narrowly focused on social control in the sense of enforcing ethnic and cultural and in particular religious conformity.  They have traditionally spent very little time thinking about economic issues other than to argue we should not rock the boat and should accept whatever distribution falls out of our current system, hence their ability to find common cause with economic conservatives on distributional matters or at least with those economic conservatives who are satisfied with the degree to which our system currently conforms to their free market ideology.  Although economic conservatives tend to do the most talking social conservatives have always been a prominent force in this country.  Despite the overall trajectory of the nation’s history toward increasing diversity we’ve always had a sizable group of people who have resented the arrival not only of new people but new ideas (again given their interests typically religious ideas but really any foreign political, social, and economic ideas).  These people don’t have any particular objection to using government power to coerce other people into toeing the line on the issues they find important.  However, they tend to share economic conservatives’ distrust and fear of democracy because of course democracy can at least potentially be used to express the interests of the very people they find undesirable and of course the constant discussions and negotiations raise the specter than people may adopt new ideas and want to try some things.  They’re much happier talking about bibles and constitutions and unchanging natural laws and basically anything immune from the forces of what they view as misguided human meddling.

And now of course we have yet a third iteration of American conservatism on our hands, President Trump’s so-called “economic nationalism,” which is apparently meant to simultaneously address the distributional beliefs and concomitant adulation of “the free market” of traditional economic conservatives, the social control and ethnic and social homogeneity so beloved of social conservatives, and a new concern: the collective economic interests of the nation as opposed to the economic interests of foreigners.  Yes, we’re basically talking about a version of what they call in Europe or did at one time anyway national socialism but you know American conservatives always have a hard time with the word socialism so of course they call it by a different name.  This sort of thing has long been a mainstay of European conservative politics but is something of a newcomer on these shores.  The social aspect is interesting because one would of course like to consider how it relates to the social aspect of traditional American liberalism and leftism.

In the USA liberalism and leftism has always been predicated on one having and expressing some interest and concern about what is happening to one’s fellow man.  And woman.  And child.  And little furry things.  And fish.  And trees.  And … whoa, let’s not get carried away.  I’m just saying entities other than oneself.  I suppose that must be the distinguishing feature of that end of the political spectrum in this country.  The belief that although individual rights and so on are very important other people are also important.  Society matters.  One’s nation matters.  One’s fellow workers matter.  When one develops this sort of mindset one perceives a whole slew of problems that remain largely invisible to economic conservatives such as how we as a society should address issues involving other people in our society struggling along some dimension or other such as poverty, unemployment, underemployment, sickness, being treated unfairly in terms of economic outcomes, and so on and so forth.

The notion that one should be concerned about other people and society in general is course as the name suggests the basis of socialism broadly conceived.  Theoretically the issue of being concerned about society is different from the issue of supporting or not supporting democracy.  That is to say one can have democratic socialism or anti-democratic socialism, which we typically call communism in this country.  American leftism has always been predominantly focused on the democratic sort because democracy is sort of a big deal in this country.  It’s our thing.  It’s what we do.  If we’re going to do leftist style socialism it’s going to be democratic socialism.  As I’ve pointed out before historically some leftists primarily abroad famously lost sight of the democratic part of the equation.  In particular, the old time communists used to rail against what they called bourgeois political democracy because they felt it was or could be or would inevitably be captured and manipulated by the wealthy classes.  Here in American even leftists who shared their assessment of the shortcomings and weaknesses of democracy in the face of concentrated economic power have opted to try to fix democracy and make it more robust rather than go the other direction and write it off as a hopeless red herring.

Conservative economic nationalism clearly has many similarities to the national socialism of the bad old days of early twentieth century Germany.  However, one presumes or hopes anyway most American conservatives, like most American liberals, would draw the line at actually jettisoning democracy entirely.  In our context what these conservatives tend to talk about is more like neutering democracy.  Limiting it.  Shrinking it.  Yes, the very sort of thing traditional economic conservatives in this country have long recommended.

Having finally and rather laboriously set the stage let’s think a bit about immigration in the context of this new sort of conservative economic nationalism / national socialism and old time traditional liberal or leftist democratic socialism.  The first point of interest here is that as I’ve just pointed out traditional economic conservatives have long been the proponents of open borders and the free movement of labor in contrast to liberals and leftists who wanted controlled immigration because they were concerned about the welfare of those already in their society or system.  Given this background it’s ironic the new breed of economic nationalist conservatives have apparently been able to turn around and smear liberals and leftists with the claim they support uncontrolled immigration and have no concern for their economically struggling fellow citizens.  What seems to have happened is the Democratic Party, the home of whatever liberal and leftist thought there is in the USA along with a great deal that isn’t particularly liberal or leftist, was pulled so far in the direction of economic conservatism under the banner of so-called “neoliberalism" they vacated an intellectual space that was then claimed by conservative economic nationalists.  Awkward as they say.

The second point is there is quite a bit of variation in how conservatives view immigration and in particular illegal immigration.  Economic conservatives are or should be according to their stated philosophy all in favor of immigration and honestly shouldn’t be excessively bothered by even the illegal variety.  It should all help to make labor markets more “efficient” as economists use the word.  Social conservatives on the other hand tend to be pretty suspicious of immigration of any sort including even the controlled legal variety and the issue of illegal immigration is no different in type but kicked up a notch in terms of the threat to social homogeneity and social control.  Conservative economic nationalists are particularly exercised over illegal immigration as it involves foreigners infringing upon our territory so to speak.  One suspects they are probably pretty suspicious of even the legal variety as well although unlike social conservatives they would presumably be sensitive to arguments establishing economic benefits or at least the absence of harm to current residents.  Just to complete the list, most liberals and leftists are probably comfortable with controlled immigration because they recognize the potential benefits and are not particularly challenged by a certain degree of social and cultural diversity.  By certain degree I am of course referring to the point I’ve made in many other posts that there is some minimum of values, meta-values if you will, that we all really need to support in order to live together peacefully.  However, like the conservative economic nationalists liberals would be concerned that legal immigration not undermine the situation of current residents.  We all belong to human society but it’s a lot easier to address issues if one shares a political and legal framework for doing so.  Like all the other groups they oppose illegal immigration but their views are moderated by the understanding it’s a difficult and potentially very expensive nut to crack and there may be some humanitarian issues involved.

That takes us to our third and final point that although no one in the country aside from perhaps some very strident economic conservatives has ever really supported uncontrolled immigration we do clearly have some disagreement in this country about the significance of the problem and the feasibility and advisability of different approaches to dealing with it.  Many social conservatives and now economic nationalist conservatives clearly consider it a very important issue perhaps even rising to the level of an existential crisis and are willing to pour money into such noteworthy projects as a wall across the southern border of the USA.  Liberals and leftists see illegal immigration as a problem we need to address in some way but tend to not see the problem in quite as dire terms.  As a typical liberal in many respects I can’t help but wonder about the likely efficacy of a wall and I have some concerns about the cost of constructing and maintaining such an object.  Indeed, I wonder whether a problem of this sort can really be solved without dealing with the underlying economic and security issues that drive illegal movement across the border.  And of course I see a humanitarian component to the problem as well at least in terms of those attempting to enter the country illegally due to extreme poverty or violence.  Again, broadly speaking we all belong to the society of humans.  Conservative economic nationalists of course appear to see no such difficulties.  Indeed the tribalism and nationalism of this form of conservative socialism may be considered a hallmark of the type.  In the same sense traditional economic conservatism in the US considers that one should treat the welfare of other citizens of the USA as irrelevant the new economic nationalist conservatism in the USA draws a firm distinction between those in the USA, whose welfare is granted significance under that variant of conservatism, and those outside the USA, whose welfare is treated as irrelevant.  The willingness to turn one’s back on someone is a notable characteristic of all forms of American conservatism although the identity of the person or persons to be cut loose clearly varies between the different strands.  Economic conservatives would prefer to cut loose everyone.  Social conservatives would prefer to cut loose ethnic or cultural minorities.  National socialist conservatives would prefer to cut loose foreigners and especially their shock troops illegal immigrants.

We should fight for the sensible and humane liberal and leftist notion of democratic socialism informed by respect for a proper sphere of personal liberty.  We should look after our people but also give a thought to what helps others as well not only to discharge our duties to our fellow humans but because when other countries do well we’re more likely to do well ourselves.  We should reject the dark tribalistic greed and power based winner take all zero sum game notion of a nation at virtual economic war with other nations and at economic, social, and cultural war with the imagined enemy within advocated by social conservatives and economic nationalists as well as the even more corrosive and dystopian every person for himself or herself philosophy of the economic conservatives.  The three headed monster of conservatism is on the prowl and we’re all the prey.  Let’s fight it with all our humanity and reason!

Immigration

Welcome friends!

I thought I might say a few words about immigration this week.  I can’t say it’s something I think about very often myself but I infer from the headlines some other people are interested.  I was just reading the other day about some issues generated by Germany’s oversized efforts to handle the flood of desperate poor people trying to escape, sorry I meant emigrate, from the myriad dysfunctional hell holes, sorry I meant countries, in the Middle East and Africa.  And of course here in the US we have Trumpo the Clown wanting to build a wall around the US and fretting about Mexican rapists.  Oh, there’s been a lot of talk.  A lot of talk.  Most of it pretty damned idiotic.  But talk is good, so let me put in my two cents worth.  Nothing too novel or profound mind you; just a couple of observations to pass the time.

One aspect of this issue is what one might call the cultural or social aspect and my thought on this aspect is that I think people are prone to silly over simplifications that tend to lead nowhere in particular.  The issue has to do with the value of diversity versus homogeneity or social cohesion and it’s just not really that simple.  Let me tell you what I’m talking about.

On the one hand we have people who seem to me to place the most extraordinary emphasis on the most insignificant of issues.  I’m talking about people who object to immigration because immigrants talk funny, dress funny, eat funny vegetables, follow funny religions, listen to funny music, and so on.  I have to say this sort of thing always sets me on edge because diversity in these areas seems perfectly acceptable to me.  Indeed, as a proud proponent of the old timey notion of the USA as a cultural melting pot I’ve always considered an amalgam of cultures to be inevitably stronger, more robust, and more beautiful than any single culture could ever be.  A nation with a healthy mix of cultural backgrounds gives everyone involved exposure to different ways of living and thinking and not only leads to better everything (by which I mean food, music, art, literature) but also just a more open and intellectually curious sort of cultural life.  That’s why the idea I sometimes hear from foreigners that the US has no real culture of its own and that it’s just a conglomeration of other cultures tends to irritate me just a little bit.  That is our culture or perhaps I should say our meta-culture.  That’s what makes us who we are.  The opposing attitude is of course conservative exclusivity and that is certainly nothing new.  That’s been going on a long, long time.  We wouldn’t have the country we have now if the conservative anti-immigration movements of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had succeeded in stemming the tide.  I suppose we would have been stuck in some vast provincial backwater chock full of white Protestant rednecks.  (I mention Protestants only because part of the old time nativist ideology in this country was to consider Catholics potentially dangerous outsiders.  You should know they’re all pretty much the same to me.)  Churches, honky tonks, lynchings, and shoot outs in the parking lot.  I’ll take the US we actually have now if you don’t mind.  And the funny thing about conservative exclusivity of course is that it isn’t typically limited to foreign persons but applies equally to all manner of other ostensible outsiders: poor people, racial minorities, sexual minorities, and in some benighted countries they  even manage to throw in the female half of the human race.  Can you imagine?  I have to laugh when I read about some of these counties where these sorts of traditional conservative values hold sway.  Were you wondering why your country can never seem to compete with the US along any dimension at all?  Well, gosh I don’t know.  Could it be you only accept contributions from half or perhaps even fewer of your citizens?  The ones that meet your fabricated and completely arbitrary qualifications.  But I’m sure you have your own explanations, right?  Probably some kind of conspiracy of godless liberals or something along those lines.  Yeah, that probably makes more sense.

On the other hand we have some people who seem unwilling or unable to exercise any judgement at all when it comes to acceptable and unacceptable immigrants.  Diversity is just fine for some issues but as I’m sure I must have mentioned before we do need everyone to agree to some minimal set of basic values relating to how we intend to interact with one another.  You know the type of thing I mean.  Accepting the political system under which we live must surely be one of them.  I don’t mean agreeing with every detail but agreeing simply that there are acceptable and unacceptable ways to voice one’s displeasure and to try to change things up.  Writing a blog is fine.  Bombing someone’s house is not.   Other sorts of values might be involved as well.  Freedom of speech (within limits), freedom of (and from) religion (within limits posed by the existence of other people), respect for other people including women and minorities of various types and so on.  We need to keep in mind many would-be immigrants come from failed or at least struggling states that never heard of any such thing as democracy or the rule of law or even respect for other people.  We shouldn’t simply take for granted that prospective immigrants will share our meta-values.  The USA is by no means a suitable environment for everyone.  Some people arriving on our shores should be invited to return to their original place of residence as quickly as possible.

What tends to really set me on edge when it comes to discussions of these cultural issues is the simplistic all or nothing idea that we must either accept any old immigrant spouting any manner of antisocial nonsense or become like latter day Nazis and fret about protecting our precious and delicate cultural heritage from the depredations of ostensibly inferior foreign influence.  It seems to me there’s a pretty big patch of ground in the middle we should be focusing on.  I’d like to hear a lot more about what belongs in our set of basic meta-ethics and a lot less about how the clerk at the local convenience store can’t speak proper English.

The other big aspect of this whole immigrant question to me has to do with economics by which I mean in this case jobs and profit.  One important component of this issue is that when we bring in new people or anyway allow people to enter willy nilly we create a larger pool of would-be workers and thus erode the bargaining power of existing workers.  One presumes this must be why many conservatives of the economic sort as opposed to the social sort advocate open borders and why working stiffs and domestic unemployed and underemployed people tend to be the most agitated about the idea.  Think of it as a sort of union busting technique.  Not that I’m sure anyone needs such a technique at least here in the US.  Conservatives have managed to convince most workers they don’t need no damn union and they should just mail the greater part of their paychecks directly to their CEOs and be thankful the job creators have blessed them with an opportunity to work at all.  Yes, nothing better to keep wages down and profits up as an army of unemployed poor people grasping at any opportunity.  Well, at least as long as there’s someone around to buy whatever the army of impoverished workers is producing.  Yes, it seems to be yet another one of those tragedy of the commons affairs where private incentives may not lead to optimal results.  Lowering wages is good for any particular company but if everyone does it one may wonder if effective demand will become an issue.

I was thinking just then of unskilled and semi-skilled labor but I think the same basic issue applies to skilled labor.  Many foreign countries have very respectable educational systems but no place for their graduates to go. It’s quite possible for employers to pick up more highly qualified candidates at lower cost if they bring in people from other countries, assuming they can’t simply ship the job itself to the foreign country and be done with it.  Similar situation.  It’s good for business or that particular business anyway, but is it good for the nation including the displaced workers?

Wait.  Now I think we might be getting somewhere.  The issue seems to me to revolve around whether we have some sort of responsibility to look after the people who are living here now.  Ah yes, distributional issues.  The ones we’re bad at because we seem to never want to discuss.  Damn.  This is going to be like pulling teeth.  Well, what the heck.  Let me just get the ball rolling.  Yes, I think “societies” matter, which I suppose must put me in some sort of socialist camp according to how conservatives think of these things.  I feel we must have some responsibility to get the people currently living in the country gainfully employed.  If we don’t have enough trained workers for whatever job then I suppose we should really train some people.  Does that mean we will miss out on some potential cost savings or we might have to turn down the most suitable candidate considered at a world wide level?  Hmm.  I suspect it might.

However, it’s not as simple as that because of course we don’t just live in a national society.  We also live in a world society as part of the human race here on planet Earth.  So what are our responsibilities with respect to people living in foreign countries?  Shouldn’t be worried about them not having jobs?  It seems to me we should because people are people after all.  But how exactly does that play out?  Does it imply we should hire them ourselves?  Does it mean we should do more to help other countries to develop their economies?  I hate to get all awkward about it, but what if it comes at the expense of our own development?  That’s seems like a tough one and it’s complicated by the fact that whenever one takes on responsibilities for people living outside one’s political and legal system everything gets much more difficult.  You know what I mean.  You try to give some aid to wherever and the emir pockets the money and promptly moves to a villa in the south of France.  I know we have some worldwide legal institutions but it does present some sort of argument for more and better, does it not?  But I suppose that’s another whole can of worms, right?  Many conservatives will start banging on about the dangers of world government (keeping in mind many conservatives are opposed to the idea of any government at all, let alone a government that includes foreigners) and at the same time some foreign potentates will start banging on about how dare anyone interfere with their money making schemes, sorry, I mean their domestic economic policy.  But anyway those are the sorts of things we should be talking about.

That’s all well and good you say but what about the nitty gritty?  What should we do while thinking this all through (or more likely studiously avoiding thinking it all through)?  Well, OK, let’s get all practical about it.  I think here in the US we should stay the course and maybe put a bit more resources into managing illegal immigration if some people are concerned about it.  I don’t think it makes sense to go all crazy about it.  If you’re living next to a country or a region of a country with a lot of unemployed poor people they will try to sneak across the border.  They’re not going to just lie down and die.  I would do exactly the same thing.  I’m not sure fixing this issue without fixing the underlying causes is even possible but what I do know is that seriously trying would probably require some pretty draconian and also pretty expensive policies.  Talk about building a wall around the US.  Anyone want to guess what building a wall around the US would actually cost?  And what do we get for it?  A reduction in illegal immigration?  Nice.  Yes, our infrastructure may be crumbling and the train just fell in the river because the bridge collapsed but we have one hell of a wall.  You can see it from space!  How about staffing and maintaining the wall?  Because you know people will naturally try to circumvent it once we build it, right?  They’re not going to just stand there and look at it in awe.  They’ll be trying their best to go over it or tunnel under it or most likely through it.  And of course we would then also have to worry about the alternatives.  Walking across the border or hitching a ride in a pickup or whatever might be the cheapest way right now but probably people will shift to planes and boats if necessary.  More difficult and more costly to be sure but where there’s a will there’s a way.

The ironic thing is that setting aside the rapists the vast majority of these illegal immigrants are honest hard working folk who are just doing what they feel they need to do to survive and make a buck.  Kind of hard to think of them as any sort of serious villain.  And my understanding is that in many cases they’re actually working in jobs that domestic workers don’t want anyway because they don’t pay enough or are too difficult.  That is to say, it’s not even clear to me how much displacement of domestic workers is actually going on.  I suspect if we ever really found a solution to illegal immigration certain sectors of our economy in certain regions of the country might very well grind to a halt entirely.

I feel I’ve been talking a while now.  I could probably go on for days but let me just wrap it up.  I think our first objective should be to cool everything down a few hundred degrees.  I have no problem at all entertaining sensible improvements in how we control unauthorized immigration but let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot here.  If some people have managed to sneak in at some point and they’ve been living and working here the past however many years and the sky hasn’t fallen then maybe it’s not the end of the world.  Maybe it’s easier, cheaper, and just all around nicer if we can just try to find a way to get them fixed up legally now.  Maybe we can just concentrate on doing a little better job in the future?  Not a perfect solution but life is so often imperfect, wouldn’t you say?  Just trying to keep it real.  And if ever we think we can stand to talk openly and honestly about economic issues let’s take up the thorny distributional issues that underlie what’s going on here.  I realize that’s probably not going to happen any time soon.  I can already hear conservatives ranting and howling about socialists and new world orders and all that stuff.  But one day.  It’s not going anywhere until we do.