Those who join the theory – many of them white conservatives – believe that a secret group of elites is using non-white immigrants and black people to marry white people and “multiply” them until they no longer exist.
“In recent days … (replacement theory) has been widely condemned for a very good reason,” Mounk said. “But the uncomfortable truth is that a less conspiratorial cousin than him has long been accepted in popular public discourse. In fact, this is one of the few things that both liberals and conservatives, both Democrats and Republicans, can now fight for. agree. “
Some progressives may rejoice at such a projection. But Moonk calls this belief “the most dangerous idea in American politics.”
He says he promotes an anti-utopian future in which white Americans and people of color are reduced to members of “mutually hostile tribes,” politicians have little incentive to go beyond their base, and many whites panic for fear of being isolated.
However, Mounk, who describes his political values as “center-left”, offers an optimistic vision of America’s future in his new book. He explains why different democracies – countries with many racial and ethnic groups – sometimes fail and how the United States can succeed.
Drawing lessons from social psychology and so many different countries like Lebanon and India, Moonk came to the surprising conclusion that true, diverse democracy in the United States, where all groups are treated fairly, is still a realistic goal.
“It is too early to come to terms with a vision for a future in which most people will still look suspiciously at anyone with a different religion or skin color; in which members of different identity groups have little contact with each other in their family life; in which we all choose to emphasize the differences that divide us, rather than the commonalities that could unite us, ”Mounk wrote in The Great Experiment.
This question is not abstract for Mounk. He was born into a Jewish family in Germany, a victim of the same hate forces that have destroyed many democracies.
Mounk, an authority on the rise of populism, recently spoke to CNN. His answers were edited for clarity and brevity.
You describe yourself as an unfashionable optimist. Why is this optimism so important when it comes to building democracy?
If you look at the history of deeply different societies, they very often break up violently or oppress minority groups in them in the most horrible way. When you look at social psychology, you see how easily people find it possible to form groups and discriminate in favor of inside and outside the group. So what we’re trying to do here is really very difficult, and we’ve often failed throughout American history.
But you can look at the current state of our society and the changes of the last few decades and realize that there are many things that justify the hard-won optimism. Our country is less segregated and less racist than it used to be. Immigrants from all over the world are integrating very well and making great socio-economic progress.
When you look away from Washington to the heart of our society, we are actually cooperating with each other across ethnic and religious boundaries much more than before. None of this should make us complacent, but it should give us confidence that we can build a better society. Without this confidence, the probability of failure will be much higher.
You say that Americans cooperate more beyond these borders than we do. What is your evidence for this?
I start from the strictest level. As early as three or four decades ago, the majority of Americans believed that interracial marriages were immoral and that it was immoral for black and white people to have children together. Today this number has decreased to one digit due to real psychological changes in our society and the number of newborns of interracial affiliation has increased.
Even at the most intimate level, Americans choose to intertwine their lives. The same is true when you look at the growth of interracial friendships, the growth of business partners who come from different demographics, and the growth of diversity in the top echelons of every American institution.
But if you look at the schools, neighborhoods, and even worship communities in this country, it seems that they are still very racially segregated.
If you compare the United States today with 50 years ago, you will see much more housing integration. You can see that schools in most parts of the country are much more integrated than they used to be, with the exception of certain extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods. But most schools are much more diverse than before.
And with the rise of megachurches in the suburbs of major American cities, you see a very vital form of religion, which is usually multiethnic, in a way that rarely exists in American congregations.
Is it possible to have a truly vibrant, diverse democracy without a deep commitment to racial integration?
Human beings are deeply group. It is natural for us to form groups and to prefer the members of their group to those who do not belong to theirs, especially in a deeply diverse society such as the United States. We will never change that fact. And that’s perfectly fine.
But just as it is so natural for us to invest in certain groups of such importance, we must also promote some connective tissue between the various groups in our society. This can take the form of ensuring that people are educated together, that they have a deeper, mutual understanding and, hopefully, mutual affection.
It can take the form of patriotism, which allows us to have solidarity with each other, even if we are different in religion, national origin or skin color. And it must also include the right of each individual to decide how important he or she wants to give to the group in which he or she was raised.
In the book, you cite two cities in India that were inhabited by both Muslims and Hindus. One was ravaged by violence between the two groups and the other was not. What was the difference between the two and what does this story illustrate in building a diverse democracy?
Unfortunately, in India we are witnessing violent riots between Hindus and Muslims, which often kill many people. But when you look more closely, you also see some interesting contrasts. There are two medium-sized cities in India, with about two-thirds Hindus and one-third Muslims. They have a similar political history, and yet we see that one city has experienced a great deal of so-called inter-communal violence, while the other has actually managed to keep the peace.
Both cities had a rich social life. They had many unions, literary clubs and all sorts of different places where citizens could meet and discuss with each other. But in one city, Hindus and Muslims have separate unions and separate book clubs. In the other, many, but not all, have members from both groups.
As tensions rose, so did the historical difference. Because in a city, when rumors spread in every association, there is no bond of trust between communities. So when Hindus heard some rumors about a young boy killed by Muslims, they may have been prompted to take revenge on the basis of this false rumor.
In the other city you have all these interpersonal relationships. You have people to trust in the communities. So, in moments of high political tension, when these rumors were circulating, someone might say, “Look, that’s not true. I talked to everyone in my community. I know that did not happen. Let’s just try to find a way to reduce this tension without unnecessary bloodshed. “This shows us the importance of connecting social capital.
Many Americans live in their own echo cameras on social media. We return to our own communities of like-minded people. How to repeat what happened in this Indian city here?
Over the last decade, millions of Americans have made choices that have made it (the country) more integrated than it was. We see, in particular, the rise of the suburbs, some upper-middle-class and some lower-middle-class communities that are more integrated than they were 40 years ago.
Members of the Minor Leagues and neighborhood associations face much more ethnic and religious boundaries than before. There is important work in the interreligious space and by the organizers of the community to try to connect people with each other.
Ultimately, this will depend on the decision that all Americans ultimately make in their personal lives. Do we stay in the comfort zone where we grew up, or do we dare to make new friends and build new relationships with people who come from different communities?
To what extent does your personal history shape your interest in this topic?
There are two important aspects. The first is that I am a Jew and grew up in Germany. My family has experienced what it means to be at the wrong end of a group conflict for three generations. My great-grandparents died in the Holocaust. My grandparents lost most of their families and were displaced. My own parents, when they were in their late teens and early 20s, were expelled from the country where they grew up, Poland, because of a state-sponsored anti-Semitic campaign.
So, I am deeply aware that a society that may seem relatively peaceful, in which people have understood each other for a considerable period of time, can suddenly erupt into the most horrific violence.
What would you say to a reader who tells you: “I am pessimistic about the prospects for a thriving, diverse democracy. Tell me how to make it work.
We have no choice but to make it work, because a brief look at history will tell you how terrible the alternative is – how violent, how unstable, how unfair the future will be if we fail to do …
Add Comment