The foreign, the alien, the unfamiliar is held out by the American left as one of the main causes of social conflict. Those citizens who stubbornly believe in their own particular ideology or creed are thus held out as particularistic, selfish, dogmatic, bigoted, chauvinist, jingoistic, and xenophobic.
But most Americans are not opposed to changing their system of government and moral code because they are afraid of the foreign because it is foreign.
They are not opposed to illegal immigration because they are xenophobes, but because those who immigrate without assimilating bring their un-American cultures with them and impose them on the country.
The reason many Americans are against illegal immigration is not because they don’t have a heart, as Republican candidate Rick Perry alleged, but because they believe in their national values and don’t want to see them culturally and thus electorally eroded.
Americans, believe it or not, enjoy prosperity, domestic tranquility, and their Constitutional rights. They do not want to see the country become like numerous countries around the world: despotic, Islamist, or “compassionately” socialist, that is to say, economically unsustainable and insolvent.
One consequence of the constant lectures on the need for diversity and tolerance is the arising of three kinds of Americans. The first is comprised of the multiculturalists themselves, who can be understood in some senses as oikophobic, as Bill Whittle explains. The second is made up of loyal and patriotic Americans, who are seen by the oikophobes as chauvinist, jingoisitic, and xenophobic. And the third is formed by illegal immigrants who feel very little for their new country, since they don’t discern any unified culture at all. On the contrary, they see anti-American movies, elites who apologize for the country and seek to “fundamentally transform it,” and swelling ranks of citizens who oppose the elites, best represented by the tea party.
One paradox of the multicultists is that they are dogmatically anti-dogmatic, and intolerant of intolerance. A consequence of the left’s value of diversity, which is actually a trojan horse for cultural and moral relativism, is that it assumes that the foreign is superior to one’s own culture and morality. Or else, why would diversity be an ethic?
Another consequence of the left’s point of view on diversity is that people are not always praised for what they do, but rather some are praised for having a certain skin color or ethnic background. Supposed minorities did nothing to earn such intrinsicist praise, just like welfare recipients did nothing to earn their payouts from the confiscate-and-redistribute state by merit of simply being the “underclass.” And with President Obama in office, race relations are worsening further, as modern liberals insist that white Americans are so poisoned by racism they need government to permanently set things aright in the name of “social justice.”
The reason diversity, tolerance, and multiculturalism are advanced as values is precisely because they wear down resistance to state control. But in many leftists’ minds, they are building a better world by breaking down all values and traditions so that no one has anything left to fight over. As Evan Sayet points out, it is the left’s utopian vision to demoralize the world.
Of course, no one can understand this warped point of view except for modern liberals. Normal people do not, as Ayn Rand put it, “hate the good for being the good.”
We’re all becoming xenophobes: the intellectual elites, who are increasingly foreign to normal people; the majority of people, who are seen by elites as bigoted xenophobes for disliking values foreign and hostile to American ideals; and illegal immigrants, who moved to a new, better nation to find prosperity and relative tranquility, but instead find a self-deprecating culture, and a supposed intelligentsia that wants to change America to be more like the countries they fled from.