My response to Michael Barone

In the august 15-22, 2005 issue of the US News & World Report, there is an article entitled Cultures Aren't Equal (pg26), by Michael Barone (a commentator on The McLaughlin Group and main author of an almanac on current politicians in the US)

In this article he attacks multiculturalism, which he accuses of giving refuge to Muslim extremists through the belief that everyone living in the country should retain their cultural heritege. He states that this tolerant view allows others with an intolerant view to flurish in our country. His solution is to recognize that not all cultures are "morally" equal, and that our western culture, specifically the US and Britain (he leaves out the rest of western Europe for some reason... or at least only says "also in other parts of Europe"), is recognizably superior.

I also take issue with multiculturalism, for different reasons, but I strongly disagree with Barone on "moral equivilancy", and am surprised that someone with his political knowledge would make such glaring errors in this essay.

Here are some quotes and my response to those quotes:

"Multiculturalism is based on the lie that all cultures are morally
equal. In practice, that soon degenerates to: All cultures all morally
equal, except ours, which is worse. But all cultures are not equal in
respecting representative government, guaranteed liberties and the rule of law. And those things arose not simultaneously and in all cultures but in
certain specific times and places- mostly in Britain and America but also other parts of Europe."

Moral comparisons are interesting. Morality, a distinction between good conduct and bad conduct, is something every culture has. The idea that our distinctions are somehow better than others is simply based on preferance, and the problem is that cultures change all the time. When you say "Western values are this:" what you really mean is "the Western values which I prefer to mention and that exist in theory at the present time are this:" "Western values" have not remained consistant, and Barone admits this by glossing over the "other parts of Europe" where his theory hasn't held up. Furthermore, he seems to think that any mention of failings in our culture equals saying that our culture is worse than any others. I think the main motivation in highlighting those faults isn't to degrade our culture, but to admit that nothing is flawless and we might still have some things to work on. (If you don't know what's wrong, how can you fix it?)

Also, who says representative government, guaranteed liberties and the rule of law are the highest values? We do, of course, but others might not agree. On what basis do we say those values are the "best vlaues" or that we even follow them? Nazi Germany, a country most Americans and British despise, had a rule of law, they had representitves, and they had liberties (but only for loyal Germans) Yet we find no problem in critisizing them for their atrocities. Yet according to Barone, it's a crime to critisize the US and Britian for their own atrocities. Because apparently one dead person isn't "morally equivilant" to another. What kind of value is that?

Lastly, has not "multiculturalism" become a Western vlaue? How can Barone say we are culturally superior, and commit the same offense as the relativists by critisizing a part of that culture?

More hypocracies:

Barone wants to expel people who advocate violence and a way of life that's radically different from our own. But yet, does he have any misgivings about advocating violence against our enemies? Against Bin Ladin?

How is being intolerant against those who are intolerant acting any better than (or superior to) them?

More on this later