Kevin D Williamson is a neoconservative writer for the National Review.(It’s the Neocon Review to many people on the internet) He wrote an article today that is a good example of the utter hypocrisy of neoconservatism. I encourage readers to read the whole thing to get a sense of his ideology.
The Left occasionally indulges in bouts of romantic exoticism — its pin-ups have included Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, Patrice Lumumba, Mao Zedong; we might even count Benito Mussolini, “that admirable Italian gentleman” who would not have been counted sufficiently white to join Franklin Roosevelt’s country club — but the welfare states that progressives dream about are the whitest ones: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, etc. The significance of this never quite seems to occur to progressives. When it is suggested that the central-planning, welfare-statist policies that they favor are bound to produce results familiar to the unhappy residents of, e.g., Cuba, Venezuela, or Bolivia — privation, chaos, repression, political violence — American progressives reliably reply: “No, no, we don’t want that kind of socialism.
We want socialism like they have it in Finland.” Translation: “We want white socialism, not brown socialism!”
Whenever Leftists cite Nordic countries as examples of How Socialism Can Work I too wonder if they realize this. Do they ever think that maybe these policies work so well in Nordic countries because they are inhabited by Nordics? I’m sure the thought occurs to them, but it’s not like they have to debate the issue. They can easily respond to Williamson, “no it has nothing to do with the fact that they’re Nordic. Do you think their success comes from being Nordic, Mr. Williamson?” And Williamson could only reply that they are right, it has nothing to do with race. Saying otherwise would be racist.
Furthermore, if Williamson were to give an example of the success of capitalism, he is most likely to cite a White country. He might cite Asian countries like Singapore or Hong Kong or he might cite Chile. He is not going to cite an African country. Socialists could make the same argument against him.
Williamson makes the typical neocon argument of attempting to conflate his enemies to right with the left in order to attack both:
Funny thing, that. As is the curious fact that the socialism you might read about in The Nation is cosmopolitan and liberal, whereas the socialism presented to the voters by Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Donald Trump, etc., is nationalistic and xenophobic, us-and-them stuff that would have warmed the heart of Father Coughlin or Henry Ford.
His three supposedly nationalist and xenophobic Democrats include a Black man, a Jew and a fake Indian. Beware of the coming Fourth Reich!
Solidarity, as it turns out, is not evenly distributed, nor is it color-blind. None of those denunciations of wicked “foreign oil” ever end with an accusatory finger pointed north toward Canada, our largest foreign supplier. When Barack Obama wants some solar-energy subsidies to pay off his crony-capitalist backers, he doesn’t rebuke the Canadians, but those damned dirty brown people in the Middle East. (Middle Eastern people seem destined to take the eternal brunt of American economic stupidity: It used to be the scheming Jewish bankers, now it’s the nefarious awful Arabs who want to sell us crude oil that we need at market prices.)
Mexicans are also Brown, yet no one objects to us buying oil from them. It may have to do with the fact that Arabs use that money to indoctrinate their populations with religious extremism and hatred of America. But no doubt Kevin Williamson will condemn the “us versus them rhetoric” that comes from his fellow neocons when they are ginning up support for the latest foreign adventure. Maybe sometime in the next decade.
In reality, economic xenophobia and ordinary xenophobia always end up colliding. The nastier of Europe’s anti-immigrant and ethno-nationalist movements argue that ethnic solidarity is necessary to preserve the welfare state. Among ordinary Swedes, the topic of immigrants’ — non-Nordic people’s — relatively high rates of unemployment and welfare dependency is politically charged. The same is true in the other Nordic countries; see Jørgen Goul Andersen and Tor Bjørklund on “welfare chauvinism.”
Welfare is bad, but how dare they Notice that non-White immigrants use it more! Williamson might be making the point that welfare policies exacerbate ethnic conflicts. I doubt the left will care.
Nordic welfare chauvinists often point to Finland as enjoying the ideal social situation: 99.6 percent of the population is either ethnically Finnish (93.5 percent) or Swedish (5.9 percent), and 80 percent of them are nominal members of the same church (Lutheran). The largest single non-European immigrant community in Norway is composed of Somalis; there are 35,000 of them, approximately the population of Bettendorf, Iowa.
93.5 +5.9 = 99.4, not 99.6, in any case it is wrong. In 2014 94.3% of Finns spoke either Finnish or Swedish as their mother tongue.(Statistics Finland, 2015)
I say these “welfare chauvinists” have the right idea! Nordic societies are some of the best in the world. This isn’t due to their welfare states, it’s due to who they are.
There are two different strategies these neocons use. One is the strategy of Williamson’s fellow National Review writer George Will. His is to tell conservatives they have to surrender to the left. And you have the Kevin Williamson strategy, making strong denunciations of the “left” in the hope that his readers won’t notice he’s saying the exact same thing that the left is saying: that Whites countries need to be demographically transformed by non-White immigration and any White person who opposes it is a terrible bigot.
Milton Friedman had a great reply to those leftists who promote Scandinavian leftism. When told by a Scandinavian economist that there was no poverty in Scandinavia he replied “That’s interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either.”