Conservatism: A Conversation with Roger Scruton on How to be a Conservative - by Roger Scruton

We begin with the law that governs the contractual relationships of people, a law not shaped by the legislature, but by social and economic interactions. We can say, Scruton observes, that this law is the people’s common law, one that guarantees their property and associations. Centralization is impatient with this private ordering and attempts to upend it with efficient legislation.

While European elites look to the transnational governance of the European Union as the condition of peace and prosperity, Scruton puts before us the nation-state and its borders as the first order of democracy and political accountability. Scruton notes that limited government is about being relational in a particular spot, ring-fenced by borders, and that allows a common life to develop and evolve.

Rulers and ruled can hold one another accountable because the terms of government have emerged from the people of this defined group with their particular history, myths, and shared commitments. Such forms of social, moral, and political capital are eroded, Scruton argues, by a boundless and unaccountable European Union, for whom the principle of subsidiarity is, paradoxically, only the powers that Brussels decides to let member states retain rather than a bottom up conception of government and order.

In this regard, we also discuss the “to hell with us” mentality that is multiculturalism. Scruton notes that it’s cold comfort that major leaders are belatedly coming to terms with its wreckage.

Multiculturalism’s existence in the government education system, laws limiting speech, and the soft tyranny of political correctness have ensured its ability to redefine life in his native United Kingdom and throughout much of Europe.

Finally, this conversation explores Scruton’s argument that a free market depends not only on an Austrian understanding of the need for local knowledge but on traditions that encircle goods, practices, relationships, excepting these from the market itself. In short, Scruton argues, an enduring free market will have the sense to recognize its limitations. There really can’t be markets in everything.

Read more: A Conversation with Roger Scruton on How to be a Conservative | Online Library of Law & Liberty

Norway and the politics of hate

Societies have been changing fast. There is mounting frustration that officials at both European and national level seem not to listen to the views of the voters.

With globalisation, national identity seems to have become more important. The nation state stubbornly remains the focus of most people's identity. And so nationalist parties have made gains in many parts of Europe. There are frequent expressions of concern about the growing influence of these parties. Others say that they provide a useful channel for the feelings of frustration and alienation.

Some of Europe's leaders, from Angela Merkel to David Cameron, have questioned multiculturalism. The danger, of course, is that such statements can encourage extremism. Others say that in Europe the debate needs to be had, openly and transparently about immigration and multiculturalism

For more: BBC News - Norway and the politics of hate

Hoover Institution - The Netherlands - Multiculturism as a Failed Cure - by John Crace

For the complete report from the Hoover Digest click on this link

Multiculturism as a Failed Cure

The Netherlands: Multiculturism as a Failed Cure - by John Crace

"what also emerges from this study is the thinness of the line between difference and prejudice. “We found that views typically held by otherwise tolerant Dutch people—that Muslims treated women badly and were too authoritarian with their children—were counterbalanced by Muslim attitudes towards the Dutch,” says Sniderman. “Muslims believed the Dutch were disrespectful towards women and failed to discipline their children properly. So this wasn’t about prejudices held by religious fanatics on both sides; it was a genuine conflict of values between two communities. It was the focus on these differences, through the pursuit of multiculturalism, that tipped the balance towards prejudice in some cases.” Sniderman is too cautious to generalize from his data, but he will concede there are parallels that can reasonably be made between Britain and the Netherlands, particularly in regard to faith schools. “The Dutch always pursued a segregated education policy of different schools for Protestants and Catholics,” he says, “and it seemed obvious for them to apply the same principles for Muslims.

“Yet the evidence proves this hasn’t worked. The biggest predictor of integration and social mobility in the Netherlands is the ability to speak Dutch, and kids at Muslim schools are not learning the language as well as students in other schools. The result is that second-generation Muslim immigrants are actually becoming worse off than their parents, a situation that can only cause more problems. And if the British government continues to promote faith schools, it could well find itself in a similar predicament.”

Note EU-Digest: "Mr. Sniderman hits the nail right on the head - if religious organizations or private entities want their own schools they should pay for the cost of setting them up and running them - certainly not the Government. Integration of immigrants into a society begins at having them fully participate in their new country's educational system, not by categorizing them on the basis of religion or economic standing.