Argument by anecdote, fueled by extrapolations without context
Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 9:02AM Mark Steyn's book is excerpted by MacLeans under the title (The future belongs to Islam). It is worth reading because I think it gives you a very accurate sense of what Steyn's book is all about (America Alone: the end of the world as we know it).
I bump into the online article because in this excerpt he obliquely cites BFA, noting that I read Robert Kaplan--unlike he, apparently, because otherwise I assume he'd cite Kaplan directly. The cite on Kaplan is just the reference to the phrase "Injun country," which he dissects very narrowly in its historical context, noting that the Sioux never ravaged New York City (although, I might add, the Irish did when sufficiently provoked, a la "Gangs of New York"--but again, Steyn likes to use his imagery very narrowly, so pointing out stuff that like is meaningless here).
Since Steyn focuses on "them" coming here (actually, arguing only Europe instead of the West at large) instead of noting the far more profound global flow of "us" going there--in the form of globalization--he only describes Islam's potential for cultural invasion here while ignoring the powerful effect of the West's cultural penetration of the Middle East (where does he think all this nationalism/Islamism is coming from?).
So, Steyn's basic technique is much like a Lou Dobbs or a Pat Buchanon: anecdotes that scare, compounded with some today data extrapolated to tomorrow's frightening inevitabilities. This is a technique often used by fear-meisters, especially in the realm of the environment, and it betrays an "all things being equal" assumption that just never holds true in the real world. A good example of this was all the "population bomb" logic from my youth, which has simply fallen apart on a global level. Now we're getting a "clash of civilizations" version of that from Steyn with reference to Europe, which is apparently the center of his universe.
But here's some limits to this logic:
1) The simple extrapolation approach on population in Europe is unlikely to unfold, as time and time again we find that those baby-crazy immigrants simply don't maintain that fertility rate the longer they live in an advanced economy. Strangely enough, they become subject to all the same pressures on family that everybody else does. We hear this argument on Hispanics here in the States, except we already find that birth rates are dropping as Hispanics get more wealth and opportunity--go figure! Just like everybody else who's come to America in the past.
2) If the amazing did come true in Europe, making it unique in human history, then what would be the difference to global history? Answer is, not much. Either Europe gins up its demographic vitality through the effective integration of Muslims or "Eurabia" simply becomes an extension of the loser Middle East. Meanwhile, the rest of the world simply wouldn't hang around. It would move on. To some, the "end of the world," but to others who "know" more of the world than just Europe, no big deal. Not big for America, whose allies will lie in the East and South, not in Europe. Not big for the East or the South either.
3) But if it did come true in Europe, it would constitute no more than a strange migration of the problem set from the Middle East to Europe, because the Middle East isn't slated for rapid expansion as a population indefinitely. Indeed, the baby boom of the 1970s, associated with oil wealth in many instances, has ended already throughout the region. Weirdly enough, as globalization increasingly penetrates the region, fertility rates have dropped throughout the region, as Olivier Roy noted in Globalised Islam, a book I used plenty in BFA. If Steyn worries so much about aging Europe, I am plenty optimistic about a middle-aging Middle East, where today's youth bulge becomes tomorrow's middle age spread. So if Steyn expects a neverending flow of population from the Islamic Middle East and North Africa to fuel his invasive species fears in Europe, that's simply not in the cards. As for the processing of that youth bulge in the Middle East, two outcomes are possible: 1) lotsa violence as politics and economics remain unchanged and 2) politics and economics in the region change a lot. If the former occurs, the Middle East will be as disconnected from globalization's Core as central Africa is today. With some pain, the world will simply learn to get along without Middle Eastern oil, as the tumult there will push the Core down the hydrocarbon chain even faster than it will proceed on its own natural course, which has been quite steady throughout human history. If the latter occurs, then just watch the flow of humanity from the Middle East to Europe dry up. Impossible? We've seen that occur on a state-by-state basis plenty with Latinos here in the States over the past 40 years. If it hadn't, then America would have been overrun by Puerto Ricans a long time ago, based on logical extrapolations you could have made in the late 1950s and the early 1960s. But no matter.
4) Steyn assumes that the invasive Muslims will simply pervert democracy in Europe, rather than avail themselves of democracy's avenues to press their economic and political demands. In effect, Steyn's making the same glum assumptions about market-democracies that Karl Marx once did about a different proletariat, yielding the same sort of decisive assumptions that will be just as powerfully disproven as his ultimately were.
5) Of course, Steyn's (and others') counters to that last argument is to say that the intense religious-cultural coherence of Islam will transcend all those changes that tamed such past threats--like say, the immigrant Irish in America who were described in all the same ways then (in the mid-1800s) as Muslims are described by Steyn today in Europe. But do we see that coherence throughout the Middle East? Hardly. When given the chance, Muslims throughout the region seem to move into an acceptance of modernity that looks suspiciously like that of every other culture on the planet. Can it be done en masse? Check out East Asian Muslims. Can it be done in Western democracies? Check out America. But these are unfair arguments to someone as fixated on Europe as Steyn, as he displays the same fatalism on culture and civilization as Osama and others do regarding the Middle East. Neither's gloom is justified. Globalization won't warp the Middle East beyond all recognition, although it will kill Osama's nostalgic dream of turning back the clock there to a time he finds more comforting. And the Islamization of Europe won't warp Europe beyond all recognition, although it will kill Steyn's nostaglic dreams for turning back the clock there to a time he finds more comforting.
There is much intellectual danger in Steyn's form of reasoning, which I believe betrays the course of his life education and experiences. Coming from the rather narrow and self-absorbed world of theater, he really doesn't have the chops to do good horizontal linkaging of trends and driving forces associated with globalization, and that's too bad, because if he understood his biases better, his arguments could be a lot more powerful, although they'd also be far less frightening, and since he works his gallows humor in this vein, I guess that's just a choice he prefers making. But this is not seriously systematic thinking about the future. Steyn's futurism betrays the usual myopic problem of the pessimists going all the way back to Malthus and Marx: they simply refuse to acknowledge the enduring ingenuity of mankind to change and adapt, plus they ignore the obvious power of markets to take advantage of both good and bad, treating all churn as simply an opportunity for new sales of new goods and services to new customers. In short, the "bad" that Steyn describes for Europe will not occur in some vacuum. Wherever Europe fails in this respect, others will exploit, and I'm not just talking about his invasive Muslims. I'm talking about the rest of this flat world.
Reader Comments (10)
Tom, thanks for another original, insightful, and thought-provoking post. I feel like there's one thing missing (or maybe I'm just missing it): what would it mean for the rest of the world to "fail to hang around" a failed Eurabia, or for that matter a failed middle east? My sense is that, in the age of globalization, just as the good health of core countries can spread to the gap, so might the pathologies of the gap spread to the core. I'm all for a quarantine of a "loser middle east," if such a thing is possible... but is it? And if so, what would it be?
Thanks as always
Excellent piece - good perspective, application of history and logic - thank you. I do have one concern that you don't mention and am curious how you might resolve it: Does the presence of nuclear weapons change these scenarios in a meaningful way? Clearly the ability of a very small group to amplify their efforts has never been even remotely close to the way it is now. Could this destablize what is apparently the normal chain to a degree sufficient to create another? Certainly one answer is that the normal course will play out, but it will be far more violent and with many more deaths than would be predicted by simple extrapolation of past examples?
While Steyn might not be a genius, Abizaid is. At least Tom seems to have a high opinion of Abizaid. Then my question would be: did Bush get Abizaid wrong ?
From WP:
Here's Bush, in his opening remarks:
"Abizaid, who I think is one of the really great thinkers, John Abizaid -- I don't know if you've ever had a chance to talk to him, he's a smart guy -- he came up with this construct: If we leave, they will follow us here. That's really different from other wars we've been in. If we leave, okay, so they suffer in other parts of the world, used to be the old mantra. This one is different. This war is, if they leave, they're coming after us. As a matter of fact, they'll be more emboldened to come after us. They will be able to find more recruits to come after us.
"Abizaid clearly sees this struggle -- he sees the effects of victory in Iraq as having a major impact on other parts of the Middle East. He also sees the reciprocal of that, a defeat -- just leaving -- the only defeat is leaving, is letting things fall into chaos and letting al Qaeda have a safe haven."
As for "stay the course"? Said Bush: "This stuff about 'stay the course' -- stay the course means, we're going to win. Stay the course does not mean that we're not going to constantly change."
Here's Bush, in his opening remarks:
"Abizaid, who I think is one of the really great thinkers, John Abizaid -- I don't know if you've ever had a chance to talk to him, he's a smart guy -- he came up with this construct: If we leave, they will follow us here. That's really different from other wars we've been in. If we leave, okay, so they suffer in other parts of the world, used to be the old mantra. This one is different. This war is, if they leave, they're coming after us. As a matter of fact, they'll be more emboldened to come after us. They will be able to find more recruits to come after us.
clearly"
Thank you for an outstanding commentary. I saw Steyn on CSpan the other night and had trouble preventing my head from exploding. People like Steyn wedded to a vision of the superiority of European culture cannot see that they are really no different from the Islamists they fear so much. They both represent the elites of an old world that must change.
To sum it up anecdotally: I recently spent time in London, and as an American, I found it to be so much more interesting and exciting than the city I had occasion to spend time in 30 years ago. It may be less of "Merry Old England," but as a New Yorker who thrives on exposure to diverse cultures, it felt much more like home to me.
The Bush/Abizad comments provided by Hans are interesting. Reminds me, just a little, of Communism/Vietnam. Thus, maybe this war is not totally different from other wars we have been in.
Your persistence to see the bigger picture with possible positive ramifications is most enjoyable and relieving in the pervasive media of doom mongers. I've read the blurb concerning 'Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization' by John Robb. The blurb combined with the title seem to be pessimistic in the same vein that "they ignore the obvious power of markets to take advantage of both good and bad, treating all churn as simply an opportunity for new sales of new goods and services to new customers" you mention. Of course the blurb and likely the title were authored by the publisher so we cannot judge the content by the cover.
In your commentary you ignore one of the central features of Islamic conquest, the parasitic absorption of the host cultures technology and science. You also downplay the amount of time that it will take to truly replace the oil products of the Middle East. What this means for us is that for scores of years and perhaps more this Eurabian countries, fueled by oil money, will be able to churn out advanced technologies with military value.
It is not the case that a Muslim conquest of Europe will lead to an immediate de-industrialization of the continent and an emptying of its universities and technology firms. Some will stay, either out of choice or because they have been bought off. The divorce of the US and Europe will be prolonged and messy.
Remember, it was the (Christian) Magyar gunsmiths that provided the Ottoman Turks with the weapons that they needed for the final conquest of Constantinople.
So, Steyn's basic technique is much like a Lou Dobbs or a Pat Buchanon: anecdotes that scare, compounded with some today data extrapolated to tomorrow's frightening inevitabilities. This is a technique often used by fear-meisters....he really doesn't have the chops to do good horizontal linkaging of trends and driving forces associated with globalization....
You're clearly a serious thinker in the camp of the anti-doom mongers. While keeping my doom options open, I'll add another name to the list of Steyn, Dobbs and Buchanon: That Donald Trump guy. I don't mean that Trump is a full-fledged doom monger and I don't know about his "chops." Still, I was surprised to find someone like him so un-enthusiastic about our globalizing with China....
"America's middle-class was shrinking as the country lost its manufacturing base and jobs to inexpensive imports, Trump said in an interview at his Manhattan office, pointing especially to China.
"If you want to open a business in China, it is virtually impossible," Trump said. "And yet, if China wants to come here and do something, there is no problem whatsoever.".....
"Maybe you have to literally restrict trade," said Trump, known to millions as the star of "The Apprentice" television show. "Because it is not going to be fair, why should you allow it to happen?"
Trump, who is chairman of Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc., said the U.S. government had given China the advantage, and failed to promote the interests of U.S. businesses in negotiations.
"China is doing a major number on the United States," Trump said. "If we had politicians that knew what they were doing, they would stop that so fast that your head would spin."
Sour grapes at getting cut out of a deal in Macao or something?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/9/230755.shtml?s=al&promo_code=26CF-1
Abizaid is smart. He's just making the long-term argument here. Yes, if we leave, they will come. Their identities will never be safe so long as we exist. In this way, the stand-off is like that with communism, just so asymmetrical since they are not a true alternative, just the friction and flotsam and jetsam of globalization.
But super-empowered flotsam and jetsam, so we ignore them at our peril.
Tom,
You don't seem to "get" Mark Steyn. I've ready your books, your blog almost every day for 2 years, and even some of your earlier work. You are working on (and sharing - thank you) ideas and grand strategy for a "future worth creating". Unfortunately, although your influence is growing, not many people out there think about "shrinking the gap" and all that your ideas entail for a long-term solution.
Mark Steyn isn't competing with you. Instead he is tying to wake up people who are in denial that there is a problem - particularly in the English speaking world and Europe. There are still far too many people who have their heads buried. People who read your material already "get it". Many, many people don't. Mark is trying to reach a broader audience on some basic problems. Once they "get" Mark's message, then they are more likely to be open to your message as well. It takes time for most people to digest and understand these complex issues. I talk about these issues every day with friends, coworkers, and family. I'm the only one who reads your material. Many read Mark Steyn. Think of them as part of a potential pipeline of readers to take the next step towards your ideas. By "bashing" Mark Steyn (and yes I may be phrasing this too harshly), you turn off otherwise thoughtful people from taking a deeper look at your ideas.
Best regards,
Brian