Minaret Minuet

In the 1950s, most western European nations, with large chunks of their workforce wiped out by the war, actively recruited cheap labor elsewhere. There was a tacit understanding, a unilateral one as it turns out, that these transient laborers from Turkey and Suriname and Morocco and elsewhere would come, put in their hours in moribund industries, and then once the economies stabilized, go home. It didn't work out that way. Not only did many of these workers stick around, they brought their families over. And they brought friends. Europe, in a moral crisis after the atrocities of WWII and less confident in its core values (I know this a gross generalization, suggesting that Europeans have core values, but time constraints eliminate qualifications), did little to stop the flow. A combination of factors in subsequent decades kept the steady stream of immigrants coming: hefty welfare benefits (come to our country and we'll pay you to hate us), established immigrant subcultures making language less a problem, a European assumption that immigration was inherently good (good for the immigrants or for the host country is a question best left unasked), a paralyzing political correctness in the wake of the Holocaust that made any objector to liberal immigration policies a racist, and economic policies that did not force assimilation, as the multitude of government freebies made adopting to the culture of the host country in order to prosper in its economic system unnecessary. The list could go on.

The result is that Western Europe now has millions of Muslims who have not assimilated and do not plan to, at least if you believe Christopher Caldwell. In his recent book, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, Caldwell argues that in this meeting between two cultures, Islam is the stronger, in an obvious demagraphic and less obvious philosophical way. He states that when an insecure, malleable, relativistic culture (see: Europe) meets an anchored, confident culture strengthened by common doctines (see: Islam) it is generally the former that changes to suit the latter. His analysis does not provide any shining lights out of Europe's quandary of changing demographics and cultural shifts that nearly five decades of unimpeded immigration has wrought. He does provide, however, a refreshingly direct look at the problem, hitting all the most famous touchstones along the way: the Danish cartoon uproar, the French riots, the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh, the head scarf controversy, etc. I thought he overstated his case too often and made too many statements without enough evidence, but I also found myself regularly nodding along. I'm curious how a book like his would be received in Europe, as Caldwell is an American and many of his statements would get him thrown out of the best cocktail parties in Amsterdam, Munich or Madrid. My guess is, though, that there is a silent and growing segment of many European countries that might also nod along as they turn the pages, many of whom are merely hard-headed realists, not racists. One of political correctness's many virtues is that it kills political discussion dead. It subverts free speech by making "opponents" bad people rather than defeating them with arguments. With, you know, like, evidence. Maybe honest debate about this stuff is going on behind closed doors in the big halls of power, but you don't see it much in the media. Caldwell's book is intentionally provocative, and I 'd love to see him in one of those florid halls debating some German minister. That the chat would have to take place in English only underscores the Hessians multicultural street cred.

Caldwell believes that safety net expenditures will no longer be sustainable, but his emphasis is on culture. Will Europeans demand assimilation, or will they expect that immigrants only abide by the law? To what extent can a worldview predicated on individual liberties preclude the public practice of a religion that is aggressively homophobic and relegates women to the private sphere? Does tolerance mean that subcultures can live parallel to the mainstream culture without ever trying to merge? There are dozens of tough questions, and Caldwell argues that unless European nations are willing to honestly and openly address them, their native cultures may bend so far that like that those drunken faces in the funhouse mirror, you can't quite place 'em anymore.