To Hell with the Other
Mitt Romney’s “not elegantly stated” remarks expressed a disposition that’s not exclusive to him or to his base. As I wrote previously, disdain for otherness–a deep-seated and disordering belief that being other is bad–remains prevalent in our supposedly pluralistic society.
Romney played on this belief in a particularly ugly way, depicting those who support his opponent as irresponsible moochers, dividing the country into the binary oppositions of the vicious and the virtuous, the takers and the makers, and the undeserving poor and the deserving rich. Nonetheless, the fundamental problem here isn’t with this particular message, despicable as it is. The disordering belief in the immorality of otherness has given it breath, and it’s in the “others can go to hell” spirit of this belief that the real villainy lies.
I’m pleased to see the push back and criticism Romney’s received for his disparaging statements, but until we progress to a true pluralism that celebrates other people as both the same and different from us, hucksters like Romney will continue to play on some kind of disdain for the other because there’s ample motivation for them to do so. Until we as a society come to perceive hostility toward otherness as a vice worth shunning and hospitality toward others as virtue worth cherishing, the class and culture war-mongering sowers of discord will reign.
Pluralism is great. It’s not so difficult a leap for me to recognize that others who are different from myself are still human beings, entitled to respect and to be valued by virtue of their humanity. Nor is it unreasonable for you to ask that I do so as part of behaving in a morally superior fashion. I think people should reach out to expose themselves to other kinds of people so as to keep their horizons broad and their understanding of their society from constricting too narrowly.
But it’s something else you’re asking if that respect requires that I refrain from criticizing other people who do things that I find objectionable. If adherents of your religion routinely practiced ritual live animal sacrifice, that makes me a little bit queasy. Maybe I have a moral objection to that; maybe it’s a reasonable or defensible moral objection or maybe I ought to mind my own business. That’s a debate we can have and we may well have to agree to disagree by the end of it.
But neither having respect for a plural society, nor an honest desire to have society and the law meaningfully recognize your autonomy regarding your religion, does not require that I set aside my own morals. It might be the case that my moral qualm about your ritual animal sacrifice raises a serious enough issue to justify society limiting your ability to act as you please. My moral condemnation of your activities is not the same thing as rejection of your humanity.
Romney and his supporters apparently find “mooching” off of social welfare programs to be objectionable. Romney gave voice to those objections. The debate we should have is whether that is a defensible objection or not.
But it’s something else you’re asking if that respect requires that I refrain from criticizing other people who do things that I find objectionable.
I’m not asking this, but no, I don’t think it does. Obviously I’m critical of those who disdain otherness.
Romney and his supporters apparently find “mooching” off of social welfare programs to be objectionable.
Apparently so, yes, but he didn’t stop with voicing an objection. He pigeonholed about half the voters in the country as people with a motivating sense of entitlement and a dearth of personal responsibility, and in so doing, promoted a narrative of class and cultural warfare between the hard working and the envious lazy, a narrative that some of his supporters actually believe.
Romney leaves no doubt that there is class warfare in this country and that it is offensively top-down in nature. Somebody once said that a house divided against itself cannot stand…
The metaphor extends nicely here: the penthouse is telling the other floors “I can stay up here just fine without you.”
He said that well before people started installing machine guns in mansions.
Mooching off social welfare programs IS objectionable. Even Sweden finds it to be total toejam. If Wall st. can rip us all off, so can the “little guy.” We’re all human. Welcome to earth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/18_06_12..pdf
TRAGARDH: The state is there to provide fundamental resources, allow
individuals to be able to take the kind of risks that a market society is all about. That’s
the dynamic that we see. The security net is there, to be sure; so that you have
situations of disaster, there is something there. But the fundamental logic, right, is that
people should work and that, therefore, you have to create economy that allows for
the creation of work. So individual autonomy and independence is ultimately based
on you having your own income, right, not getting money from the state.
FIDGEN: And what happens if you don’t have your own income?
What part do you play in that society?
TRAGARDH: Well you’re actually in a tough spot, right? Sweden is in many
ways a kind of rough society, right? People who fall outside find themselves in a
situation, right, where they will survive, but they will not be given the kind of respect,
nor really the kind of income that someone will that has a job. So the incentive
structure – and that’s even stronger today with a new Conservative Government – is
very much geared towards getting people into or back into the workplace.
…
FIDGEN: In a homogenous nation, it’s
easy to forge shared values and to persuade people to pay high taxes to build the
society you all want to see. But that social cohesion is coming under threat as
Sweden becomes more globalised; indeed as it becomes more like Britain. The
first challenge to the Swedish model: multiculturalism. Over the past two
decades refugees have poured into Sweden from the former Yugoslavia, Somalia
and Iraq. Many of the immigrants have moved to suburbs like this one: Tensta
in North West Stockholm. Eighty five per cent of the people here are first or
second generation immigrants, and many can’t find work. More than a third of
people registered as unemployed in Sweden come from abroad. Marcus Uvell of
the free market think tank Timbro argues the Swedish model designed for a
homogenous society is simply unable to cope.
@ TVD —
All that proves is that Swedes, too, are prone to say, “To hell with the Other.” That doesn’t make it right.
Romney and his supporters apparently find “mooching” off of social welfare programs to be objectionable.
So do Swedes. Mooching off social welfare programs IS objectionable. Mooching is human nature, so is resenting being mooched off. Any objection that doesn’t contemplate both the injustice of mooching and the human reaction to it is ad hoc moralizing.
yes, you dirt grubbing peasant.
welcome to earth.
Now when you’re able to do math, you can come back into the classroom,
and we can talk about the real moochers.
TVD — Not true. The excerpts you clipped point out quite clearly that it is the new demographic in Sweden, due to an influx of foreigners, that is causing issues there. Swedes were quite content to pay high taxes in exchange for the services and security it gave them, until they had to start paying for “Others.”
Did you even read what you posted?:
“In a homogenous nation, it’s easy to forge shared values and to persuade people to pay high taxes to build the society you all want to see. But that social cohesion is coming under threat as Sweden becomes more globalised; indeed as it becomes more like Britain.”
Ultimately, what this says is that socialism works just fine, until the socialist society is asked by historical events to share the benefits of the socialist system with people other than the indigenous majority; then it begins to break down due to xenophobia and racism. …And this is a good thing?
people abuse programs. so what should be done about it? defund/eliminate the programs or better regulate?