The Fecklessness of Multiculturalism
Originally posted on October 4, 2006, on the Townhall Interface blog. This post is still an accurate critique of the ideology behind much of the so-called progressive left, discussing the bankruptcy of this worldview. Unfortunately, it is the ideology of our current administration.
In response to the fuming of the Democrats over the recent airing of “The Path to 9/11,” Hugh Hewitt has almost singlehandedly introduced and championed the use of the word “fecklessness” to describe President Clinton’s demonstrable nonresponse to the terrorist attacks on U.S. interests that occurred on his watch. It is not my intent to discuss that particular issue, but the fact is the word was and is singularly appropriate. The Oxford English Pocket Dictionary that comes with my word processor of choice defines “feckless” as:
1. ineffectual; feeble. 2. unthinking and irresponsible.
The Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th edition, definition is identical:
1. weak; ineffective. 2. careless; irresponsible
My contention here is that this word, in addition to accurately describing the Democratic approach to the war on terrorism, also thoroughly defines in all points the multicultural worldview that serves as the underlying philosophy of the majority of liberals. This worldview holds that no particular culture or ideology is superior in any way, except, of course, the multicultural one, and that judgments of good and bad cannot be made upon any people group simply because they are different and hold different, or even completely opposite, views from us. We are to be “tolerant” of other cultures. We must “understand” them, not criticize them. After all, they are only doing what they think is right, and since there really is no right or wrong, no transcendent standard to which their behavior may be compared and by which it may be evaluated, we must simply find a way to get along without all the moralization and name calling. These individuals become hypocritically vexed when confronted with someone of a monocultural worldview who refuses to acknowledge the validity, and, indeed, superiority, of the multicultural view, and thus prevent multicultural doctrine from making and controlling policy at any level. Tolerance evaporates in such cases, unless, of course, their opponent is holding a sword in their hand. Regrettably, it would appear that most of western civilization has embraced this philosophical foundation, Europe in particular, but large portions of the U.S. as well.
Multiculturalism seems to be a response to the empirical observation that there are a multiplicity of competing truth claims in the world expressed in the various cultures and ideologies out there. However, rather than entering the marketplace of ideas and doing the intellectual work of seeking out the truth, the multiculturalist takes the lazy way out and refuses to enter the discussion of the validity of competing worldviews by declaring all worldviews equally valid and denying the existence of Truth (with a capital T). As such, it is unthinking and thus the emphasis on feelings and not engaging in any discriminating behaviors because it might hurt someone’s feelings. This mindset so permeates our culture now that even conservatives ask one another’s opinions in discussions with the question, “How do you feel about…?” (To which I want to reply, usually in a scream of frustration, “It doesn’t matter what I feel, the question is what do I think about it!”) The concept of objective reality is becoming more and more elusive to that portion of 21st century mankind ensnared by multicultural attitudes.
It is this concept of objective reality, of ultimate Truth, that seems to be particularly anathema to multiculti’s, and I would like to suggest a reason why. If there is ultimate Truth, then there is the distinct possibility that there is an external standard to which we may ultimately be held. There would be responsibility, but the nature of multiculturalism denies responsibility all together. (In the 60’s, it was “the devil made me do it!” Today we blame the culture, the environment, the Republicans, and especially President Bush. But it wasn’t me!) At its core, this worldview is as selfish and narcissistic as it can be. They want to do what they want to do, becoming a law unto themselves. To justify their ability to do so, they have developed this philosophical foundation that denies the existence of any external standards. Lest you think I exaggerate, I would bring to your attention the following quote from one Aldous L. Huxley (1894-1963), an English novelist and critic, and author of Brave New World (1932). In another book of his entitled Ends and Means, also published in 1932, he writes (emphases added):
“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning – the Christian meaning, they insisted – of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”
Incidentally, the theory of evolution was one of the primary tools used by the Huxleys in asserting and promulgating their philosophy and they championed application of this theory to multiple arenas outside that of biology. Ultimately, the meaningless of human culture is the result of multiculturalism. If all are equally valid, none can be particularly significant.
The feckless bankruptcy of multiculturalism becomes particularly stark when with faced with a monocultural worldview such as we are faced with in Islamic fascism (let’s not cheapen language by refusing to call it what it is; political correctness won’t save us). Islamic fascism is certain of the truth of its worldview, and its adherents are more than willing to die for it, especially if they can take some infidels along with them. Of course, most monocultural worldviews believe theirs is the way of truth; the critical question is, how do they engage differing worldviews? Or, in other words, what does the content of their truth say about how to spread their faith/ideology/worldview to others? Islamic fascism is the only such view today that engages in radically violent, evil, bloodthirsty behavior amounting to blackmail to do so. The multiculturalists’ response is ineffectual and feeble at best. They have no foundation on which to mount even a self preserving defense because in their worldview, there is no such thing as evil to be opposed, only difference to be tolerated. And as noted above, even this “tolerance” is applied inconsistently. Islamic fascism is to be tolerated and appeased (because they hold a sword?), but fundamental Christianity is dangerous and to be opposed? Christians are not to be allowed free speech, freedom of association, or basically, any other freedom except to shut up and sit down while the multiculti-elite manage the world.
For the multiculturalist, self-defense, especially with violence, is immoral. Thus we have all the nonsense about the moral high ground in the national debate on the treatment of the murderous thugs caught in acts of violence, all too often not against armed forces, but against innocent and unarmed men, women and children. They are blind to the fact that such high moral ground is merely the site of literal suicide as their enlightenment flings them off the high precipice of their moral confusion. Pardon me if I decline to subscribe to such delusional self destruction.
This inability to define and see true evil is the most dangerous consequence of this worldview. Hugh Hewitt plays an audio clip every now and then from some movie in which the actor is exclaiming something like, “I don’t like you because you’re gonna get me killed!” Not only does this position commit suicide, but it is a suicide bomber: it will take us all down with it. Because the multiculturalist has no reason to fight for his way of life, he has no true appreciation for freedom and its cost. His motto is “better Red than dead,” modified it seems for the 21st century to “better Mohammed than the grave.” In sharp contrast, we have Colonel Travis’ words when he fully realized that he and the 185 soldiers gathered at the Alamo were surely to perish there:
But if I am destined to die, let my scabbard be empty, and my sword red with the blood of men who would deny freedom.
Needless to say, he was not a multiculturalist! God give us the grace and wisdom to sink this philosophy into the trash heap as soon as possible. Otherwise, it will put us there instead.