That pearl from Victor Davis Hanson:
Where did multiculturalism come from? It is a bastard child of Marxism, of course, inasmuch as it is anti-capitalist and judges left-wing or pseudo-left-wing totalitarians far less harshly than right-wing authoritarians (e.g., Obama is more sympathetic to the crowds in Cairo than he was to those in Teheran). It is also a byproduct of Western affluence, which alone provided the margin of safety and affluence to indulge in fantasies. One reports on the noble Palestinians by staying in nice places in Israel; one is an advocate of the “other” in Harlem from the Harvard Lounge and Upper West Side; the yuppie actor praises Chavez and his forced redistributive housing schemes, but would never turn over his vacation Malibu beach house to homeless illegal aliens who cut his lawn.
Finally, multiculturalism is a form of political and historical ignorance. The multiculturalist is an ahistorical fool, who confuses the cultural periphery with the core. Thus the United States is enriched by “multicultural” music, food, fashion, art, and literature from a Mexico or Kenya or Egypt. Fine, wonderful, all the better. But one, in the spirit of “diversity,” does not wish to embrace the Mexican judiciary, the Kenyan economic system, or the Arab attitude to women. Multiculturalism is a fraud of sorts, as the activist who wears the serape to campus never quite agitates for adopting the protocols of the Mexican police or the Mexico City elite’s approach to Indian peoples. We do not see signs blaring out: “We want Nigerian speech codes,” “Treat women as they do in Saudi Arabia,” “Look to the Iranians for gay rights,” “Arabs had the right idea about slavery,” etc. When I do radio talk show interviews, usually the harshest U.S. critics are transplanted Middle Easterners who in their furor at American foreign policy never quite explain why they left and do not go back to places that they now idolize — as if the economic, political, and cultural protocols they enjoy here would appear in Gaza or Yemen like dandelions after a rain if it were not for U.S. imperialism.
Bottom line: it will be hard for Obama in the future to immediately come out on the side of those professing Western values in opposition to some pseudo-revolutionary indigenous strongman, whether in Iran or Venezuela. To the degree he feels comfortable “imposing our values” and taking a stand, it will only be in a context where there is an authoritarian figure who can be seen as culpably right-wing or an American puppet. Western bad is clear from abstract standards, the good is all relative.
Oh yes, Obama at times will resort to abstract notions of justice and timeless morality that transcend culture, but mostly to fault America for some sort of past -ism or -ology, or sin — as the apologies from Turkey and elsewhere made clear (an abstract standard says the U.S. was genocidal in its treatment of the Native Americans or in using the bomb at Hiroshima, but no such arbitrary and culturally constructed “standard” passed off as transcendent allows us to condemn the Turks for the mass killings of Armenians, Greeks, and Kurds.)
It is going to be a long two years. You see, the world has figured Obama out, and the wages of our version of 1979-80 are coming due.
Read the entire piece and be enriched. Then hope like hell this country will survive the Obama presidency.