Politics

التحدث إلى اليمين المتطرف

Nov 7, 2017 Ian Buruma

نيويورك ــ يشترك العديد من الشعبويين اليمينيين في شكل غريب من أشكال رثاء الذات: الشعور بكونهم ضحية وسائل الإعلام الليبرالية، والأكاديميين، والمفكرين، و"الخبراء" ــ باختصار من قِبَل ما يسمى بالنخب. ويعلن الشعبويون أن النخب الليبرالية تحكم العالم وتهمين على الوطنيين العاديين وسط أجواء من الازدراء المتغطرس.

وهذه في نواح كثيرة رؤية عتيقة. فلم يَعُد الليبراليون أو اليساريون يهيمنون على السياسة. وقبل فترة طويلة توارى النفوذ الذي كانت تتمتع به ذات يوم صحف يسار الوسط الكبرى، مثل نيويورك تايمز، وذلك بفِعل مضيفي الحوارات الإذاعية، ومحطات تلفزيون الكابل اليمينية، وصحف التابلويد (التي يملكها إلى حد كبير روبرت مردوخ في العالم الناطق باللغة الإنجليزية)، ووسائط التواصل الاجتماعي.

ولكن النفوذ ليس كمثل الحظوة والمكانة. فلا تزال الصحف الكبرى، مثلها في ذلك كمثل الجامعات الكبرى، تتمتع بمكانة أعلى من الصحافة الأكثر شعبية، وينطبق الشيء نفسه على التعليم العالي. وتفتقر صحيفة "صن" أو صحيفة "بيلد" إلى الاحترام الذي تحظى به صحف مثل فاينانشال تايمز أو فرانكفورتر العامة، ولا تستطيع الكليات الإنجيلية في المناطق الريفية في الولايات المتحدة أن تنافس هارفارد أو ييل.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 18 Comments on this article

nussb017 Nov 15, 2017

Dear Mr. Buruma
your claim that "crime rates among refugees in Germany are far (sic!) lower than among natives" is just wrong. According to the German police statistics 6.77% of the non-Germans population was accused of having committed a crime vs. 1.91% of German citizens (adjusted by immigrant-specific crimes such as illegal entry) making non-German citizens 3.5 more likely to commit a crime (the German police statistics records only citizenship not residence status). For countries like Syria (9.63%), Afghanistan (14.9%), Algeria (54.32%), Somalia (24.03%), Iraq (11.72%), Nigeria (16.58%) where most refugees (claim to) come from the rates are even higher. So the claim that crime rates among refugees are substantially lower is with regard to the police statistics untenable.

Nicolas Nussbaum
- Peter Schaeffer Dec 14, 2017
  
  So Ian Buruma is lying about the crime statistics? A member of liberal elite is lying? Wow, that has never happened before. Actually Steven Pinker has a general comment on this subject that certainly applies to this case.
  
  "One trend is a stated contempt among many scholars for the concepts of truth, logic, and evidence. Another is a hypocritical divide between what intellectuals say in public and what they really believe. A third is the inevitable reaction: a culture of “politically incorrect” shock jocks who revel in anti-intellectualism and bigotry, emboldened by the knowledge that the intellectual establishment has forfeited claims to credibility in the eyes of the public."
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Krishnan Madathil Nov 10, 2017

How are the socialists not envious of higher social status and wealth? Indeed, are not the wealthy of the world the most highly persecuted minority, being thrown from country after country looking for a home?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Krishnan Madathil Nov 10, 2017

Question - how were the National Socialists right-wing? Isn’t the problem with all socialists that they claim to care for the people, but actually don’t? It’s not really washing well anymore.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Nov 9, 2017

Ian Buruma believes that right-wing populists capitalise on self-pity to win support. They project the "feeling of being victimized by the liberal media, academics, intellectuals, 'experts' - in short, by the so-called elites." Often ordinary people feel they have little control over their own destiny and blame the liberal elites for dominating them, "with an air of loft disdain." The prevailing view is that elites are soul-less cosmopolitans and globalists while they are the real patriots, advocates of the soil-and-blood nationalism. Indeed, "social status arouses more envy and resentment in our populist age than money or fame do."
What seems a paradox is that Trump, a masterful populist, embodies the sort of city slickers that his supporters loathe while he feels a deep sense of bitterness and unleashes his rage towards people who have "greater intellectual or social prestige than he does." Manipulating this bitterness, he pits his supporters against the liberal elites for his own political gain. The author says, "that he shares this resentment with millions of people who are much less privileged goes a long way toward explaining" his success.
The author says, while Brexit cheerleaders and Trump's advisers, like Stephen Bannon "had the grubby air of middle-aged patrons of backstreet porno cinemas, a new bunch of younger far-right cranks, who are dandyish, make inroads. In the US, the well-groomed and soft spoken Alt-Right leader, Richard Spencer has a penchant for nostalgic-laden aesthetics. In Europe, many far-right nerds are "salonfähig, respectable enough to move in high circles. Overt racism is muted; their bigotry is disguised under a lot of smart patter. They crave prestige."
Last month the author engaged in a conversation onstage with Marc Jongen, a leader of the German far-right populist party, AfD, as part of the annual conference given by Bard College’s Hannah Arendt Center. He discussed populism with the AfD-ideologue, whom he found pathetic. Jonchen lashed out at Angela Merkel and criticised her politics. Exaggerating crime rates committed by refugees, he said "Islam was robbing the German Volk of its true identity. Men like Jongen were always being called Nazis" etc.
Jongen’s participation in the conference, Crises of Democracy: Thinking in Dark Times, sparked intense debate. A damning letter signed by over "50 distinguished US academics" criticised the Arendt Center, and alleged that the German politician’s inclusion “enabled him to leverage Hannah Arendt’s legacy to legitimize and normalize the AfD’s far-right ideology”. The Bard College criticised the “self-righteous stance of the signatories and the moral condemnation of the letter”.
The author does not disapprove of Jongen's presence, saying "if one is going to organize a conference on right-wing populism, it is surely useful to hear what a right-wing populist actually has to say." He maintains, it amounts to hypocrisy if "left-wing revolutionaries were once a staple of campus life," while a prestigious college should not lend legitimacy to an ideologue of a "major opposition party in a democratic state" to express his far-right views.
The author says "protest against inviting Jongen was not only intellectually incoherent; it was also tactically stupid, because it confirms the belief of the far right that liberals are the enemies of free speech, and that right-wing populists are victims of liberal intolerance." It was expected that "Jongen left the Bard conference politely discredited," only to find himself lashing out at the organiser later and seeking to "snatch victory from defeat."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Nov 8, 2017

I always wondered if rise of extremism, bigotry, religious fanaticism etc. is part of only a this or that part of our globe! It exists in all countries - East or West. Ultra nationalism , a spin-off of defeats in wars, distorted history narratives , all contribute to this curse. It is the responsibility of all global citizens to stand firm against this menace .
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Nov 8, 2017

Most remarkable about this article is, many words but the key issues are not even touched.
These are that Germany, and the EU, is faced with an unlimited flow of immigrants / refugees.
This is caused by the population explosion that is taking place in Africa, the Middle East and Asia and the many religious conflicts in the Moslim world. Just Africa has now 1200 million people and is expected to double that number by the next 35 years. Already 400 million have expressed their wish to migrate to the EU, preferably to Germany. If these people immigrate to the EU in significant numbers it will make end to the EU as a functioning society.
Mrs. Merkel however refuses to set limits on the number of immigrants / refugees she is willing to admit.
The EU has outdated immigration laws, from 1951, which cannot be changed without support from Germany.
Immigrants like to go to Germany because they like the life there.
However with large-scale immigration that life ( wealth, culture, laws, safety ) will disappear.
Mrs. Merkels her policy is a threat to Germany and the EU.
That is what I understand the AfD, and many in the EU, are concerned about and what mr. de Jong tried to explain.
And the left ? They have no effective answer to this mounting global threat.
Their response is often the same, as this article demonstrates too.
They neglect the issue and raise instead all kinds of less or no relevant arguments.
The background of mr. de Jong, the status of newspapers, principles and ethics, etc.
They can limit their thinking to the small political correct bubble, in which they feel comfortable with. However the problems in the real world will not get solved by it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Nov 7, 2017

The language of the extremist is remarkably similar whether left or right, up or down, north or south, you just need to insert the appropriate ideological word at the same point in the argument. They are all victims and their message is we are all victims and we should comply or die with their solution. Given the opportunity we would all be subjugated. In this case the rise of this particular right is due to the overbearing wonky thinking left. The right might be smoke and utilise a smokescreen but there is no smoke without a fire.

BTW In all of this it seems to be forgotten that pre WW2 eugenics was a very popular topic and had support in the chattering classes including so called intellectuals in Western countries
- P. Kamath Nov 8, 2017
  
  Don't you think that extremism exists in every country and bursts into full flurry when right conditions appear ie Sri Lanka. India or say Serbia ! Sudden change in demographics, loss of real or imagined "culture" etc. are all real factors! Will 21st century be any different from 20th?
  
  Should we all succumb to pessimism ?
  - Steve Hurst Nov 8, 2017
    
    P K
    
    No I hope that we should all be positively realistic of the problems
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Henk Crop Nov 8, 2017
  
  Steve. Well put.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Martin Nov 7, 2017

Of course the point that it is better, from a left liberal perspective, to talk with the far right, is correct. But the way how Buruma makes it is disgusting and disqualifies himself as well as his political views.

Saying that right wingers have "...the grubby air of middle-aged patrons of backstreet porno cinemas" and describe Stephen Bannon as "a crank in a dirty raincoat" is no argument. It is merely an insult. Chassez le naturel il revient au galop.

I happened to attend a conference of Jan Buruma one day. Sorry, but would I have his tendency to ridicule someone by insisiting on physical appearence, strange manners or the colour of socks, there would be many ways to ridicule Jan Buruma without adressing his political views. But in my opinion political argumentation should be preferred.

Finally, the right-wing doesn't have to concern at all over losing the advantages of victimization. The arrogance of liberals is soooooooo incurable! And this remarks also applies to Patricia Wilson's comment.

Who you think you are, you liberal intellectuals?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Patricia Wilson Nov 7, 2017

The writer above and you are very correct in criticizing the left for demanding that ultra right speakers should not have the right to speak. It's unconstitutional for one and secondly it merely gives them more reasons to show the left must be wrong if they won't listen to their speakers. Not that they want to listen to the left but that's beside their point. They want attention and they get more of it by being told they CAN'T... They remind me of some of my high school students that wanted to "pay me back" for making them do homework. They got very upset and quiet when I told them they just make it easy for me if they do no work. Then I just put down zeroes for the blanks in my grade book. If they wanted to get back at me, do the homework so I had to take the time and effort to grade them. If the left wants to quiet the ultra right, allow them to speak as long as they get permission to be there. Then either harass them verbally as they speak or just walk out on them or not show up at all. Show one's disapproval by walking out. There is nothing illegal about that but it shows them they can't control the audience just because they are there to speak.
This also applies in criticizing CEO's that attend meetings that are basically Republican/Conservative. We can ban their product(s) if we wish, but we need to allow them to be there so they find out how undemocratic many of them are; i.e. Aspen Group that meets in the Rockies 2-3 times annually.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ian Maitland Nov 7, 2017

Ian Buruma is right about the free speech issue. Denying free speech to the alt-right will only legitimate their feeling of exclusion and, worse, may earn sympathy for them. They will have achieved that most coveted of statuses in America -- they will be victims.

But what I find unpardonable, if that is what Buruma is doing, is his implication that all opposition to Merkel's open door policy in Germany is really about bigotry. Doubtless some opposition was motivated by bigotry, but much or most of the opposition was because Merkel's open door policy was unbelievably stupid. It will make the integration of the immigrants virtually impossible.

The point is that the only proven way to integrate immigrants is to admit them in relatively small batches. But the massive unchecked immigration permitted by Merkel will lead to huge foreign ghettos where children will assimilate to the immigrant culture, not the host one. These ghettos will become breeding grounds for resentment because the young people won't assimilate and so will remain an unmeltable underclass.

Not only that, but almost as terrible is another consequence that Merkel's policy set in motion, although Germany has dodged the bullet for now. That is her gift to the German right. The huge disruptions caused by the influx have caused harm and dislocation to the existing population who will blame the immigrants. If AfD eventually triumphs it will in large part be because of benefactors like Merkel.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Keith Roberts Nov 7, 2017

Your comment is exactly right. Nasty speakers love to provoke boycotts, pickets, or insensate outrage because it makes them notorious, attracts other psychos to their views, and makes their opponents look foolish. Polite refutation is good, followed closely by simple avoidance, as people do socially to malodorous or otherwise unpleasant people.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/UZRmfzHar

التحدث إلى اليمين المتطرف

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

The Closing of the Academic Mind

Log in/Register

التحدث إلى اليمين المتطرف

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification