Burka Bans In Europe: Out of Many, Some?

Ok, nine months since last post? Well I've been busy!

The FT published a new Harris Poll today that suggests Americans are more tolerant of Muslim tradition than Europeans.

As the headline reads: "Majority Support Outlawing the Burka". That majority lies in the 5 Big EU States and ranges from 50% (German) to 70% (France). In the USA, by contrast, only 33% support a ban on the burka, akin to President Sarkozy's proposed ban in public places.

So does this mean Europeans are less culturally tolerant than Americans?

Well, you could try to counter that its more about the European secular ideal than cultural intolerance. You could try, but you would fail: the very same FT poll revealed even bigger majorities opposed to a combined ban of the burka, the crucifix and the Jewish cappel.

Or you could argue that its just a European preference for government intervention that isn't shared in small government America....or that Europeans are, perversely, more wary of the security risks posed by full body covers than Americans are.

Or you could admit a cold and nasty truth: the EU motto "United in Diversity" is no more than a poor cousin of "E Pluribus Unum". What are we going to do about it?

Michael Sandel's Reith Lecture

One of Sandel's comments at the end of his 2nd 2009 Reith lecture struck me as an interesting answer to the third question in Brokeback Bits below.

He was advocating the growth of serious political dialogue, a new citizenship, n all that. One member of the audience asked about the role of the internet and new media in this process. His response was interesting because it showed that Sandel thinks, ultimately, that we can only stretch ourselves so far before we revert to localised communities:

His reply was that, yes, the internet would of course have a major role to play in the new citizenship that he favours. But the caveat was that no universal medium will ever be able to replace face-to-face discussion. Consequently, he joins those who foresee a rise in localised political dialogue in the future. A sort of bifurcation between the big issues, being dealt with on a universal stage on the one hand; and the politics of the local taking place through the geographically segmented fora of old.

So, in Sandel's view, when it comes to political community-building, we cannot stretch ourselves infinitely thin and give up our geographical localisation. We always need a local base. But, insofar as he is sincere about the role of universal media in the future that he sees, Sandel also believse that there is a place for the geographically-blind community too.

Is this subsidarity in 21st Century community building? If so, is it likely to work? Would the different communities address only their "appropriate" issues? Would a natural sorting take place?

Brokeback Bits

I saw brokeback for the first time tonight - how many years since release? Anyway, there's a fragmented story if ever there was one.

At the end of the film, it emerges that Jack Twist requested that his ashes are left on Brokeback Mountain - a place neither his wife nor parents know anything about, but which Jack himself considered to be the most important place of his life. Jack's situation contrasts with Ennis'. Whilst Jack is clearly never reconciled with his fragmentation (continually striving to overcome it, whether with Ennis or someone else), Ennis is reconciled to it (though not exactly happy with it).

Fact is, after so long trying, we've reached a point where people can hold their most treasured possessions in different places for an entire lifetime, never bringing them home for all to share because it's no longer clear who "all" is anyway.

For sure, that's a huge achievement compared to what was around before. But still, it takes some thinking about, even if you're born into it.

So, I'll start with some questions about how far us humans can stretch:

- Can you function as a social human without sharing your whole person with any one significant other?

- Are the bonds of love and loyalty possible if a person retains disparate parts of his or her core being?

- Can community exist in a truly overlapping and geography-neutral pattern?

These questions aren't meant to be , I should add, specifically about homosexual cowboys. Rather, just about the self-questioning liberalism that we're living in now. They sum up my confusions about the relations between people, groups of people, countries and groups of countries.

What do we do now we've done liberalism?

What Campaign Obama Can Teach Us in Europe

Leaving aside speculation over the future President Obama, it’s worth taking a moment to reflect on a lesson from Campaign Obama, one which has particular resonance for Europe:

Populism need not involve an appeal to the people’s most base political instincts; it can also work by inspiring them to demand more from their elites.

In comparison to the Democratic campaigns of 2000 and 2004, Obama’s campaign was markedly populist. For sure, it wasn’t a campaign against Government per se. But it was a discourse supporting the people against the current elite, against the status quo. This was embodied in the campaign slogan “yes, we can”, which pitched “we” the people against those leaders who have so far failed to deliver “our” real hopes and aspirations. And it was evident in the fact that, like so many populist “Goldwater-Republican” campaigns before it, the real heartbeat of Campaign Obama lay in its grassroots support, not the political elite in Washington DC.

Yet the campaign was also extremely positive. The core message was inspirational rather than fearful. It was not a case of a leader “reaching down” to the people’s fears and resentments; it was an instance of the people asking their leaders to “step up” to their highest hopes and aspirations. In winning the election Obama has turned populism on its head and proven it can still succeed.

This is a lesson that Europe would do well to learn right now. At the Union level, populism is treated as the arch enemy of progress, embodied most vividly in Declan Ganley’s campaign against the Lisbon Treaty. And at the national level, the list of “successful” populist campaigns in Europe is a testament to the power of fearing the future and hating the Other. Twentieth Century European history bears witness to the destructive effects that this approach can bring, especially at a time of financial crisis and a shifting geopolitical landscape.

Campaign Obama demonstrates that positive populism is the only way to tackle this threat. The Irish referendum will not be reversed by a second yes campaign that represents the Irish political establishment more visibly than the hopes of the Irish people. And the ugly head of xenophobia will continue to rise in Europe’s national elections until our leaders develop the creativity to inspire their people with hope rather than buy them with fear.

Perhaps it may prove harder to inspire “cynical Europeans” than “wide-eyed Americans” in this regard. But the alternative is in nobody’s interest. And besides, isn’t this what politicians are for?