Exploring the Compatibility of Multiculturalism and Social Democracy & Card Games

Last week, I invited my usual friends over for an evening of card games and banter. It was inevitable that the night would spiral into another of our notorious debates, especially with Evan in attendance.

“As the cards were being brought out, Jenny asked, “Who’s shuffling?”

Rob eagerly volunteered, “Let me do it.”

 I immediately shouted “No!” Every time Robby shuffles, he spreads them across the table like a messy pile of laundry laying in the far corner of a bedroom. I love the kid, but he’s ridiculous sometimes.

“So, Paine, you want to do it then?” Jenny teased.

"You know what," I countered, looking towards Evan, "I think Evan should do it. He’s the master shuffler here." I prod him playfully, "Evan, you're just so much better."

"Sure, I'll add it to my long list of many talents," Evan bragged with a smirk, "So, who’s tycoon this round?"

“Me,” Jenny declared.

“Not for long,” Evan boasted.

Jenny looks at me and asks, “How are your law school admissions going Paine?”

I responded, “They’re going really well. I think I’ve great odds at getting into a fantastic school!”

“You’d have a better chance if the Supreme Court didn’t just make Affirmative Action illegal,” Evan teased.

“Even though Affirmative Action directly benefits me, I still find it quite condescending and demeaning.”

“Well, you shouldn’t. It supports historically marginalized communities subject to centuries of systematic oppression.”

Hearing nothing but catchy slogans and buzzwords, I decided to put the validity of his beliefs to the test, “So, I assume you favor a diverse, multicultural society do you not?

“Of course I do.”

“And you also think that the government should be more involved, passing legislation in order to ensure an equitable and inclusive society, correct?”

“Right again, Paine.”

"So how do you reconcile your desire for multiculturalism with your support for heavy government intervention?" I asked, trying to draw him out.”

Evan looked genuinely puzzled.

"You believe in the rule of law right? That nobody, no group has particular privileges that make them immune to laws, and that all laws must apply equally to everyone."

"Of course, that's a necessary element of liberal democracy."

"And do you think it's possible for a single policy to meet the diverse needs and wants of every community?" I asked.

"Probably not perfectly, but it's better than doing nothing," Evan said.

"Okay, but the result of trying to meet everyone's needs is that no one is truly satisfied and conflicts arise." I continued.

Evan thought for a moment. "I guess that could happen, but the government has to legislate, it can't just do nothing."

"Do you see how over-legislation and over-reliance on political channels might strain the social fabric of a multicultural society?" I asked the others.

Jenny and Robby both seemed a little puzzled.

I recalled an analogy to illustrate my point. "Growing up, when my parents would take my sister and me to Blockbuster, we had to agree on one movie to rent. It was always a battle, one week I'd yield, and we'd watch Ella Enchanted, the next she'd relent, and we'd watch War of the Worlds. Dissatisfaction was inevitable on every ride home. Now, imagine that scenario but instead of two siblings, there are twenty, each with different tastes, yet only one movie can be chosen."

"Oh! That helps Paine, thanks," said Jenny.

Robby too seemed to nod in understanding at the topic at hand.

Evan laughed. "Ah, the tyranny of the majority at a family movie night. Classic! I know what you're getting at Paine."

You're exactly on the nose! Economist Milton Friedman proposed that…" I began, but Evan cut me off, waving his hand dismissively.

“Here we go with the Economists again,” he groaned.

Trying not to laugh, I continued, “Friedman said that using political channels, while inevitable, tends to strain the social cohesion essential for a stable society. And that every extension of the range of issues for which broad agreement is sought strains the delicate threads that hold society together."¹

"That’s a fun concept coming from an anarchist. But once again, government is necessary," Evan countered, his voice rising slightly over the shuffle of cards. "It sounds like you’re making a big deal over just a few policy issues.

“I’m not saying to abolish the government. Rousseau warned us centuries ago that a one-size-fits-all approach to laws doesn’t work for diverse societies. It only breeds misunderstanding and conflict. The U.S. is huge, with each state as distinct as a separate sovereign. Using political channels to resolve differences in such a place is a zero-sum game. Because all laws must apply to everyone equally, and different groups have different needs and wants, we create a multi-layered tug of war,” I explained, hoping to make him see the broader picture.”

“The same laws will not suit so many various provinces, which with their different customs and contrasting climates, cannot tolerate the same form of government. Having different laws only creates misunderstanding and confusion among peoples who live under the same governors and are in continuous communication with one another… Talents are hidden, virtues are ignored, and vices remain unpunished when such a multitude of men , who do not know one another, is brought together in the same place by one single seat of supreme administration.”²

Jean Jeaques Rousseau, The Social Contract, pp. 91

"Referencing Rousseau and Friedman in the same premise is funny, you’ve to admit, Paine," Evan chuckled, dealing the cards.

I laughed and replied, “The humor is certainly not lost on me, Evan.”

"Still sounds like an overreaction to a couple of policy disagreements," Evan pushed back as he continued dealing.

“The consequences can be catastrophic,” I pressed on. “You, being a history major should know what happens to a group of people living in a land they’re not native to once envy is added to the mix. Every time the Jews relocated, their powerful culture launched them into economic prosperity and political influence. Resentment sets in, and well, we know the rest. Genocide and civil wars are the consequences of “a couple of policy disagreements.”

"Fundamental differences in basic values can seldom if ever be resolved at the ballot box; ultimately they can only be decided, though not resolved, by conflict. The religious and civil wars of history are a bloody testament to this judgment.”³

Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom pp. 30

Evan nodded slowly, processing. "Yeah, I can see that. So what are you solutions then? I know you have some."

Well, let's figure it out together. You want both diversity and a large involved state. Let's look at two societies. One that prioritizes diversity, and the other, which prioritizes an interventionist government.

"Sounds good," said Evan

So in a society that prioritizes diversity, we would have to mitigate our overreliance on and reduce the scope of political decision-making. This overreliance is of course, the problem we identified with the society we have now.

"So what takes its place, how do people make change?" Evan asked.

"A power vacuum forms for something else to take its place. What do you think replaces the political sphere as the dominant form of decision-making?"

Evan knew the answer right away, "The market."

Yep, the private sector naturally assumes a larger role. The market, unlike political channels, is not a zero-sum game.

"Ok but how does that work?"

"The widespread use of the free market reduces strain on the social fabric by making conformity unnecessary with respect to any activities it encompasses, which mitigates the stake that different groups have in the political sphere, reducing collective resentment.

“You know how I feel about laissez-faire capitalism, it doesn’t work,”

“I’m not arguing for laissez faire," I countered. "I’m not saying we should abandon all forms of welfare and social benefits either. Rather, this is an incentivization towards self-sufficiency. More to my point, laws most conducive to society are those consistent with established social norms. In a melting pot like the U.S., we need to respect the natural development of these norms. That means legislating on fewer issues.”

“The general objectives of all institutions must be modified in each country to meet local conditions and suit the character of the people concerned… What makes the constitution of a state really strong and durable is such a close observance of conventions that natural relations and laws come to be in harmony on all points, so that the law, shall we say, seems only ensure, accompany and correct what is natural.”⁴

Jean Jeaques Rousseau, The Social Contract, pp. 97-98

  “You’re going to have to give me an example because I just don’t buy that the market is the solution here,” Evan challenged, leaning back in his chair with a skeptical snigger.

“During the early 20th century, neighborhoods like Little Italy and Chinatown thrived as residents supported each other in culturally cohesive enclaves, meeting communal needs without relying on political interference.⁵ This model of a positive-sum game allows groups to succeed independently, without imposing their will on others or placing their fate in the hands of political bureaucrats. Marginalized communities of today would benefit from following suit. Instead of opting for divisive minimum wage laws, rent control and affirmative action programs, it’d be conducive to deregulate the private sphere, leading to more competition, which creates more options allowing marginalized groups to operate in enclaves they feel the most comfortable. When the invisible hand is left to its own devices, groups can choose the route they wish to take without competing in the political sphere and burdening other groups for their own causes,” I explained, hoping my examples clarified my point.

Evan countered, “This just opens the door to capitalism’s faults like monopoly and inequality.”

"Before you start bashing capitalism like it’s a redheaded stepchild, let's examine the other state that prioritizes all sorts of your big government goodies.

"In that example, I gave you earlier about Little Italy and Chinatown, what did they both have in common?"

"They were both made up of the same ethnic groups."

"And in such a society, shared values and needs make it simpler to reach consensus, right?"

"I don’t like where this is heading, argued Evan."

"Well, this option permits us to have a heavily involved government. However, it demands a homogeneous population as a prerequisite. We see from Scandinavian and European countries, where heavily regulated welfare states function smoothly, largely because of their homogeneous societies."

“That’s literally Nationalism,”

“Well, yeah. It is. But it solves the problem we've identified. When a society's customs, values, and history are shared, they can more easily agree on the direction they want the government to lead them in. Another one of my favorite thinkers, Hayek, said,

"The effect of the people's agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where they want to go: with the result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not want at all…[we] are forced to produce agreement on everything in order that any action can taken."⁶

Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom pp. 104

This illustration from Hayek is similar to my example earlier, of my sister and I choosing a movie at Blockbuster right? You can have your universal healthcare, centralized education system, and price controls, but diversity and immigration will have to take a backseat to government efficiency and communal cooperation.”

“That’s evil. You know as well as I do the atrocities committed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the name of the ethnostate.”

“I don’t like this path either Evan, but if you want your big government goodies, this is the price you have to pay. You’re always pointing to Sweden and France as paragons of political governance. Because their populations are over eighty-five percent native, they can efficiently move in one direction as a society with less dissension. They willingly surrender upwards of thirty to forty percent of their paycheck to help their fellow countrymen; expecting their neighbors to do the same for them. There is less ingroup conflict in these homogenous countries because they can agree as one on a plan of action. Canada attempts but fails to follow as these countries do, but because of the French Quebec and the English-speaking UK Canadian’s ethnic conflicts, they fall into the pitfall: they're trying to pass wide and vast legislation while being a dual-ethno state. A French Canadian is more likely to be apprehensive towards surrendering a chunk of their paycheck to help an English Canadian living a province away for the same reason a wealthy Korean person from Virginia has no relation to a poverty-stricken German living in California. Sweden in recent years has fallen victim to this as well with its influx of asylum seekers from the Middle East after the Arab Spring. Seeing the consequences, Scandinavian countries began closing up their borders to prevent further socio-political harm.

“I don’t need to explain why Nationalism is a terrible idea. I want to backtrack to the earlier option because this one simply is not worth entertaining.”

Robby gets a word in, “I wouldn’t chalk up nationalism right away Evan.” The means to get there can be brutal, but as an end result, you have to admit that it is a successful and efficient way to run a country. For Scandinavian countries that didn’t have to engage in genocide or civil war to create a homogenous population, a government that caters to the wants of that native population is fine then, right?

Evan replies, mildly annoyed, “Why are all your ideas garbage Robby?”

Rob looks at Paine for a response.

“Robby, your logic is sound, in that an ethnostate that is naturally composed of its indigenous population wouldn’t need to engage in bloody conflict to retain itself. but I can’t really justify Nationalism either. A population can become too reliant on the government. When you rely on the government for education, health, food, and most other goods or services, despotism can occur in the blink of an eye. One more consequence is that even though one group can agree on a plan of action easier than two different groups, that one group is still made up of many individuals who also possess their own ideals, needs, and wants. So even though ingroup conflict is significantly alleviated, it isn't extinguished.”

Yeah, that makes sense, Robby smiles, wanting to be a part of the conversation. “I was just throwing something out there.”

And I appreciate that, Robby! In my opinion, no political structure is worth examining!

“Justify the Third Reich then Paine,” Evan smirks.

“I could if I wanted to, but I won’t. Let’s get back on track. You were going to bash capitalism, right?”

“Right. Monopoly, inequality, discrimination, and government corruption are all serious threats under capitalism, or does your selfishness blind you to reality?”

“We’ve talked about what you think are the faults of capitalism hundreds of times, Evan."

"And you've been wrong hundreds of times."

I sigh. "Ok. I'm not presently arguing on a ride-or-die capitalist hill at the moment. I'm simply asserting the claim that your dream of social democracy can't really coexist with a melting pot like the United States.

"How do you account for political corruption from big corporations, which will be inevitable under a society that forgoes their usage of political channels?"

Good point. But let me ask you this: why do businesses often lobby the government?" I asked.

"To gain advantages and avoid regulations," Evan replied.

"So, if the government's power were limited, would businesses still have the same incentives to lobby?" I asked.

"Probably not, but then monopolies would form."

"Well, historically, monopolies are usually created by the government, and the concept of a persisting monopoly is extremely unstable.

"That's bull."

"Alright. But still, in a less interventionist system, the risk of political corruption and cronyism decreases. Businesses would focus more on competing in the market rather than influencing politicians. That still sounds like a win to me.

"What about those who are left behind?" Evan asked. "Capitalism breeds huge inequalities, you know this."

"That's a valid concern. First, inequality exists in every society, there is no getting rid of it, especially in a society of millions. And so long as the lower and middle classes have 1.) a reasonable standard of living, and 2.) fair opportunities to climb the economic ladder, I don't really care how much money the richest people have. More importantly, however, in a more decentralized system, communities and local organizations could step in to support those in need, tailored to their specific circumstances. Like Chinatown and Little Italy, or even Harlem! Wouldn't that be more effective than a distant government trying, mostly unsuccessfully, to address every issue?" I asked.

Evan groans, "You just have an answer for everything." What about large-scale problems that require coordinated action?" Evan persisted. Look at slavery and women’s suffrage! These we were only possible through government intervention. How can you only rely on the private sphere for everything when these historical injustices were voted on sharply divided lines? They tore the country apart!?

"Great question. And I agree! These were extraordinary jumps forward manifesting the intentions of the constitution while also being sharply divided issues. In cases where the alternative would violate the natural rights and freedom of our citizens, I promote the usage of political channels. This is of course, an extremely high bar. Only when liberty is threatened or non-existent, should political channels be used on divided lines. Fleshing out this idea further, I'm looking through the lens of negative liberty rather than positive liberty: a person should have the freedom from interference to engage in a certain action rather than the freedom to engage in a certain action. Simply put, going through political channels is justified when a group is being denied the right to engage in a certain course of action; the removal of legal barriers falls under such an umbrella. However, this justification is not present in giving a group the resources to achieve an end such as affirmative action or price controls.”

Evan, unimpressed replies, “Oh c’mon, that sounds like a cop-out.”

“The exception does not define the rule. Remember, I’m not saying that government is never necessary. Rather, I argue that multiculturalism thrives best in a liberal democracy when the laws do not a) create divisions across ideological lines, splitting the country, or b) demand conformity that violates our natural rights. We obviously have to use government sometimes, and I identify these circumstances as legitimate uses of political channels.

“These two states are not the only two options we have and I don’t buy it. Arguing with you is ridiculous. What about plurality? In the United States, there is a great lack of representation because of the two-party System. England, on the other hand, has like six parties represented in their Parliament due to proportional representation! When plurality is well, and people are fairly represented, groups won’t be as inclined to lean towards resentment!”

He looked pretty proud of this one. "Evan," I reply, “I think that is an extremely good point, and you’re absolutely correct! Plurality indeed mitigates collective resentment. I do think that greater plurality would be a fantastic addition to the solution I’ve presented, however, I don’t believe it could be a replacement for two reasons. In an attempt to increase representation, it also makes parliament work slower, since with more parties, and more sides to consider, legislation is bound to move slowly. In my opinion, that’s fine, that’s just a side effect of democracy. However, what often occurs is that with people wanting so much legislation, and with so little being agreed upon in Congress, frustration will grow regardless of who is represented. And second, even if that doesn't happen, nothing is really done to reduce overreliance on political channels. It seems more like a curtain to give people a sense of fairness without directly addressing the issue.”

"Paine, just because you can explain it better doesn't mean you're right. I know you're wrong, and that there are more options than just the two you've presented," Evan said getting annoyed.

Trying to keep the mood light, I reply, "I don't intend to present these choices as strictly black and white. A society doesn't need to exclusively opt for complete laissez-faire economics or an absolute ethnostate; however, there are consequences for each deviation from these extremes. The more homogeneous an ethnostate is, the more efficiently it can dictate and pass policy. Conversely, the further it moves away from ethnocentrism, the greater the challenge it faces in passing the extensive legislation required by a big government. Similarly, the more a society embraces decentralized political institutions and a self-reliant, capitalistic approach, the less group conflict it will encounter. On the other hand, the more this diverse society deviates from market ideals and relies on political channels, the more complex its challenges become."

Evan, withdrawing from the subject replies, “O get where you’re coming from. But I truly believe that a perfect society is possible. These trade-offs are just too costly to accept. Let’s just get back to the game.”

Jenny agreed, “That’d be nice.”

Ending the conversation on the matter, “Believe me when I say that I truly desire a multicultural society. But I recognize too that a diverse society paired with a market-oriented approach presents its own set of challenges, but you know as well as I do that it offers a more viable solution compared to the rigid constraints of an ethno-state or heavily centralized governance mixed with multiculturalism. This approach not only promotes individual autonomy and reduces intergroup resentment but also aligns more closely with the foundational principles of a free society. I too desire a multicultural society, Evan. However, I believe my proposition is the superior alternative to both Nationalistic tendencies and the legislation-happy manner in which we presently advocate for change.”

"Evan smiles and nods at me, then proceeds to shout, “Robby it’s your turn!”

As Evan proceeded to win Tycoon for the third round in a row, I couldn't help but reflect on our discussion. While our views differed, these debates sharpened our understanding of each other and the world. I always viewed this as the point of our gatherings.

________________________________________________________________________________________

(1)(3). Friedman, M., Friedman, R. D., & Appelbaum, B. (2020). Capitalism and Freedom. The University of Chicago Press, pp. 30.

(2)(4). Rousseau, J.-J., H., C. G. D., Brumfitt, J. H., Hall, J. C., & Jimack, P. (1993). The Social Contract ; and, Discourses. J.M. Dent, pp. 91, 97-98.

(5) Sowell, T. (1999). Race and culture: A world view. BasicBooks.

(6) Hayek, F. A. (2015). The Road to Serfdom. Univ. of Chicago Pr. pp. 104.