The Day the Delusions
Died
A lot of people woke up on
October 7 as progressives and went to bed that night feeling like
conservatives. What changed?
October 22, 2023
When Hamas terrorists crossed over the
border with Israel and murdered 1,400 innocent people,
they destroyed families and entire communities. They also shattered long-held
delusions in the West.
A friend of mine joked that she woke
up on October 7 as a liberal and went to bed that evening as a 65-year-old
conservative. But it wasn’t really a joke and she wasn’t the only one. What
changed?
The best way to answer that question
is with the help of Thomas Sowell, one of the most brilliant public
intellectuals alive today. In 1987, Sowell published A Conflict of Visions. In this
now-classic, he offers a simple and powerful explanation of why people disagree
about politics. We disagree about politics, Sowell argues, because we disagree
about human nature. We see the world through one of two competing visions, each
of which tells a radically different story about human nature.
Those with “unconstrained vision”
think that humans are malleable and can be perfected. They believe that social
ills and evils can be overcome through collective action that encourages humans
to behave better. To subscribers of this view, poverty, crime, inequality, and
war are not inevitable. Rather, they are puzzles that can be
solved. We need only to say the right things, enact the right policies, and
spend enough money, and we will suffer these social ills no more. This
worldview is the foundation of the progressive mindset.
By contrast, those who see the world
through a “constrained vision” lens believe that human nature is a universal
constant. No amount of social engineering can change the sober reality of human
self-interest, or the fact that human empathy and social resources are
necessarily scarce. People who see things this way believe that most political
and social problems will never be “solved”; they can only be managed. This
approach is the bedrock of the conservative worldview.
Hamas’s barbarism—and the explanations
and celebrations throughout the West that followed their orgy of violence—have
forced an overnight exodus from the “unconstrained” camp into the “constrained”
one.
The Reality of Woke Ideology
Many people woke up on October 7 sympathetic
to parts of woke ideology and went to bed that evening questioning how they had
signed on to a worldview that had nothing to say about the mass rape and murder
of innocent people by terrorists.
The reaction to the attacks—from
outwardly pro-Hamas protests to the mealy-mouthed statements of college
presidents, celebrities, and CEOs—has exploded the comforting stories many on
the center-left have told themselves about progressive identity politics. For
many years, they opted for the coping mechanism of pretending that the
institutional capture of universities, corporations, and media organizations by
the woke mind virus was no big deal. “Sure, students shutting down events they
disagree with is annoying,” they would say, “but it’s just students doing what
students do.”
October 8 was a wake-up call for those
who didn’t appreciate that the ideology of the campus has spread to our cities,
supercharged by social media.
We woke up on October 8 to the clamor
of street protests in cities across the West condemning Israel even before any
major Israeli response to the attacks. We watched celebratory crowds
brandish swastikas and chant
“gas the Jews” at events purporting to be about the loss of Palestinian lives.
We saw Black Lives Matter chapters lionize terrorists.
In London, where I live, we watched
the mayor deliver glib assurances that “London’s diversity is our greatest strength” in
the midst of a wave of antisemitic attacks, and as Jewish schools were forced to close because of safety
concerns.
Across the West, we noticed that our
representatives refused to condemn
Hamas’s kidnappings, and that the legacy media was all
too eager to swallow and regurgitate Hamas propaganda.
Prior to the October 7 massacre, many
students, alumni, and donors with the “unconstrained vision” trusted that the
university—for all its many problems—remained the West’s best environment for
civil discourse.
But then they watched university
presidents who were quick to issue statements condemning the Russian invasion
of Ukraine and the killing of George Floyd fall silent, or offer the most slippery, equivocal statements
carefully crafted to avoid offending anti-Israel groups. They watched an
Israeli at Columbia get beaten with a stick, and
heard reports about the physical intimidation of students on campuses across
the country. They read about dozens of student organizations at Harvard signing
a letter holding Israel “entirely responsible” for
the massacre of Israelis.
The events of the last two weeks have
shattered the illusion that wokeness is about protecting victims and standing
up for persecuted minorities. This ideology is and has always been about the
one thing many of us have told you it is about for years: power. And after the
last two weeks, there can be no doubt about how these people will use any power
they seize: they will seek to destroy, in any way they can, those who disagree.
This unpleasant conclusion is
surprising only if you are still clinging to the unconstrained vision. But if
there is any constant in human history, it is that revolutionaries always feel
entitled to destroy those who stand in their way.
Just as hope about the possibility of
peace with jihadists seems suicidally naive, reconciliation with citizens
seized by the woke mindset seems a long way off.
Immigration
Nowhere is the shift from the
unconstrained to constrained vision starkest than on immigration.
For decades, both Europe and America
basked in an “unconstrained vision” of immigration. In the U.S., the melting
pot that could integrate the nineteenth-century Germans, Irish Catholics, or
Japanese could surely absorb those crossing the southern border. And many of
these new arrivals would do jobs Americans didn’t want to do. Europe needed
immigration to deal with an aging population, with many European countries
inviting people from their former colonies to fill labor shortages and skills
gaps.
But over time, especially from the
late 1990s onward, the unconstrained vision ran rampant through media and
political elites, and immigration went from being a solution to specific
problems to a moral good in its own right. (I am myself an immigrant. When I
moved to Britain from Russia in 1996, net immigration into Britain ran at
55,000 people a year. Last year, net immigration stood at over 600,000 people.)
Over the past decade, more and more
people in America and Europe have quietly shifted toward the “constrained” view
of immigration. The Brexit referendum and the election of Donald Trump were
early warning signs of this ongoing transformation. Today, we see New York,
where nearly 60,000 newly arrived
migrants are putting tremendous strain on shelters and city services like
healthcare, education, and public transport. The city has already spent over $1 billion to
address this crisis, and projections indicate that housing costs alone could
exceed $4.3 billion by next
summer. Lifelong Democrats in Manhattan tell The New York Times that
“we have too many people coming in,” and that “Biden could do something more
about putting our borders up a little stronger. I mean, we’re not here to take
in the whole world. We can only do so much.”
Europeans have learned similar lessons
from their own migrant crisis. In Britain, we spend approximately $10 million a day on
hotels for people who have come here illegally. We refuse to deport foreign
criminals over “human rights” concerns.
Readers may recall seeing recent media reports about the small Italian island
of Lampedusa, whose population quadrupled in a day as large numbers of illegal
immigrants arrived. We have now learned that a man who shot two Swedish soccer
fans dead in a terror attack in Brussels last week arrived there illegally via the island in
2011. The man was known to the authorities as a security risk due to his jihadi
links, but when his asylum application was rejected in 2020, he was not deported. How
many such people are allowed to come and stay in Europe is impossible to say,
as hundreds of thousands of people make illegal crossings into
Europe every year.
But despite these shocking statistics,
the issue of illegal immigration has been impossible to discuss in polite
company for decades. No matter how bad the problem became, to raise concerns
about it would almost always lead to accusations of bigotry and xenophobia.
What we have witnessed over the last
two weeks—with enormous pro-Hamas rallies in cities like London, Paris, and
Washington, D.C.—has the potential to change the immigration debate in a
decisive way. It is much harder to pretend that allowing people to enter our
country illegally is a moral good when you watch some of them celebrate mass
murder in the streets of your capital cities.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has
recently announced the intention to deport illegal immigrants “on
a large scale” as his coalition hemorrhages votes to anti-immigration parties.
France has banned pro-Palestine
protests and warned that foreign nationals who take part will be removed from
the country. Britain has also threatened to revoke the visas of
foreigners who praise Hamas. Whether this represents a permanent realignment
toward a more constrained view of immigration or merely a temporary blip on the
path to progressive dystopia remains to be seen.
Border Security
To express concern about border
security has for many years been coded as “right-wing.” But how many people,
after the horrors of October 7, believe that a secure border is anything other
than the most basic test of national security?
I have just returned from a week in
Los Angeles where, on recognizing my name, every single Armenian Lyft driver
struck up a conversation in Russian. Once the inevitable complaints about the
rising cost of living were out of the way, several shared with me their own
journeys into the U.S. and those of their families. I was struck by the fact
that those who came in the 1990s and 2000s had usually come legally, but more
recent arrivals had made their way through Mexico. One man told me about
smuggling his two brothers and 80-year-old father through the southern border:
“It’s easy,” he told me.
I have no doubt he is correct: 2023
saw the highest number of illegal crossings since records began. And
polling shows that the American people, who are otherwise uniquely welcoming of
new arrivals, aren’t happy about it. The
problem with illegal immigration isn’t just its scale; it’s that we have no
idea whether the people coming are 80-year-old Armenian retirees or jihadi
terrorists plotting another 9/11.
It is clearer now than ever before
that borders aren’t about bigotry, they’re about security. In a sign of the
times, Joe Biden is now continuing work on the
border wall that Democrats spent years criticizing Donald Trump for erecting.
The West
The reason the readjustment is
necessary and, in my view, highly likely, is that proponents of the
unconstrained vision have been allowed to ride roughshod over the concerns of
ordinary citizens. They have used this window of opportunity to implement extraordinarily
impractical and outright harmful ideas because they take the unbelievable
levels of safety, plenty, and freedom we enjoy in the West for granted. The one
form of privilege you will never hear them address is the first-world privilege
that we all benefit from every day.
They have done this because the
fundamental flaw in the unconstrained model of the world is a failure to
understand Thomas Sowell’s greatest maxim: there are no solutions, only
trade-offs. When you let your institutions be captured by an ideology of
intolerance and illiberalism masquerading as progress, that has consequences.
When you sow division at home and signal weakness abroad, that has
consequences. When you debase the public’s faith in what they are told by the
media and their government, that has consequences too.
Western civilization has produced some
of the most stunning scientific, technological, social, and cultural
breakthroughs in human history. If you consider yourself “liberal” or even
“progressive,” it must surely be clear by now that America and her allies are
the only places in the world where your values are even considered values. If
our civilization is allowed to collapse, it will not be replaced by a
progressive utopia. It will be replaced by chaos and barbarism.
Will this waking-up moment persist? It
depends, in large part, on our courage to look reality in the face.
As Sowell explained, “When you want to
help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell
them what they want to hear.”
And the truth is that we have indulged
in magical thinking for too long, choosing comforting myths over harsh
realities. About terrorism. About immigration. And about a host of other
issues. In our hunger for progress, we have forgotten that not all change is
for the better. Now the world is paying the price for that self-indulgence.
Let’s hope recent events are the wake-up call we so desperately need.
Konstantin Kisin is the co-host of the
podcast Triggernometry. You can read all of Konstantin’s
work on his Substack.