Homogeneity allows for more progressive policy. T/F?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows that countries with culturally homogeneous populations generally have a stronger ability to maintain the social contracts that sustain progressive policies. This is not controversial.

When cultural values are highly divergent within a country, of course people will not be as willing to support the sort of redistributionist policies that are part of progressivism. The reason the US has been able to stick around so long with a lot of immigrants is because it did not have those sort of left-wing policies.

Your logic: the reason we don't have progressive policies is because racists won't support them. Well there's a vote in favor of progressive policies.

It's not "social contracts", it's "the social contract", and its' from Locke. Locke did not believe that the social contract was based on culture but on philosophical truths that are inherent to all of humanity.

Locke made his theories in 17th century England….he’d poop his pants if he saw Birmingham or south London today.

[Anonymous]

Something very interesting happened in Michigan town of Hamtramck and it reminded me of this old thread on here.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned

“ While Hamtramck is still viewed as a bastion of multiculturalism, the difficulties of local governance and living among neighbors with different cultural values quickly set in following the 2015 election. Some leaders and residents are now bitter political enemies engaged in a series of often vicious battles over the city’s direction, and the Pride flag controversy represents a crescendo in tension.

“There’s a sense of betrayal,” said the former Hamtramck mayor Karen Majewski, who is Polish American. “We supported you when you were threatened, and now our rights are threatened, and you’re the one doing the threatening.”

For about a century, Polish and Ukrainian Catholics dominated politics in Hamtramck, a city of 28,000 surrounded by Detroit. By 2013, largely Muslim Bangladeshi and Yemeni immigrants supplanted the white eastern Europeans, though the city remains home to significant populations of those groups, as well as African Americans, whites and Bosnian and Albanian Americans. According to the 2020 census some 30% to 38% of Hamtramck’s residents are of Yemeni descent, and 24% are of Asian descent, largely Bangladeshi.

After several years of diversity on the council, some see irony in an all-male, Muslim elected government that does not reflect the city’s makeup.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A question for progressives:

In general, democrats/liberals in the US support more immigration, amnesty of those here illegally, and other policies that support heterogeneity.

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

Which is more important to progressives? The former or the later?

I already had my own opinions on this but this article made me think of it again today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385035/homogeneity-their-strength-kevin-d-williamson

I have voted D in all elections for full disclosure.

Liberals/SWPL's act the same 'white flightish' ways that caused de-urbanization as well - look at white people commenting regarding cupertino, tj, and other schools if too many asians come in.

True. Really no debate

Visit Denmark or Japan

[Anonymous]

I wrote this over 10 years ago on dcum:

Bumping because David Leonhardt wrote this in the NYT today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/magazine/denmark-immigration-policy-progressives.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A question for progressives:

In general, democrats/liberals in the US support more immigration, amnesty of those here illegally, and other policies that support heterogeneity.

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

Which is more important to progressives? The former or the later?

I already had my own opinions on this but this article made me think of it again today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385035/homogeneity-their-strength-kevin-d-williamson

I have voted D in all elections for full disclosure.

Liberals/SWPL's act the same 'white flightish' ways that caused de-urbanization as well - look at white people commenting regarding cupertino, tj, and other schools if too many asians come in.

Your article could be summed up "socialism works in Norway because they are ethnically pure and people help their own kind". What a crock.

I mean it’s the truth though.

[Anonymous]

I can't believe you are debating this when everybody knows this.
There are no bad schools in Japan and it has nothing to do with money. There are schools with no money in rural areas and schools with plenty of money in urban areas. But all of them are good because they are all filled with Japanese children.
So many urban households will donate their taxes to a rural area. Because they don't see it as "The other" siphoning away their wealth. They see it as a helping hand for a family member having a rougher time.
An immigrant coworker from another country said that no one is depressed in her home country because "you step out of the house and you make a friend. Here everyone is guarded because everyone is so different. We (ethnicity) are all very similar in personality so we all like each other." And when you all like each other you want to help each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The homogeneity thing is racist.

Human beings are by nature racist, which is just a pejorative for tribal. Everyone is in a racial gang in the California State Prison system and every white person calling this article racist would have to join a racist gang or end up bleeding out or getting sexually violated if they didn’t. This is because when the facade of civilization falls we’re all just stupid, primal animals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A question for progressives:

In general, democrats/liberals in the US support more immigration, amnesty of those here illegally, and other policies that support heterogeneity.

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

Which is more important to progressives? The former or the later?

I already had my own opinions on this but this article made me think of it again today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385035/homogeneity-their-strength-kevin-d-williamson

I have voted D in all elections for full disclosure.

Liberals/SWPL's act the same 'white flightish' ways that caused de-urbanization as well - look at white people commenting regarding cupertino, tj, and other schools if too many asians come in.

True

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe you are debating this when everybody knows this.
There are no bad schools in Japan and it has nothing to do with money. There are schools with no money in rural areas and schools with plenty of money in urban areas. But all of them are good because they are all filled with Japanese children.
So many urban households will donate their taxes to a rural area. Because they don't see it as "The other" siphoning away their wealth. They see it as a helping hand for a family member having a rougher time.
An immigrant coworker from another country said that no one is depressed in her home country because "you step out of the house and you make a friend. Here everyone is guarded because everyone is so different. We (ethnicity) are all very similar in personality so we all like each other." And when you all like each other you want to help each other.

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

This should be mandatory reading for all Dem politicians. This is common sense, but for some reason people like to pretend otherwise.

Leftist politics depend on collective solutions in which voters feel part of a shared community or nation, she explained. Otherwise, they will not accept the high taxes that pay for a strong welfare state. “Being a traditional Social Democratic thinker means you cannot allow everyone who wants to join your society to come,” Frederiksen says. Otherwise, “it’s impossible to have a sustainable society, especially if you are a welfare society, as we are.” High levels of immigration can undermine this cohesion, she says, while imposing burdens on the working class that more affluent voters largely escape, such as strained benefit programs, crowded schools and increased competition for housing and blue-collar jobs. Working-class families know this from experience. Affluent leftists pretend otherwise and then lecture less privileged voters about their supposed intolerance.

“There is a price to pay when too many people enter your society,” Frederiksen told me. “Those who pay the highest price of this, it’s the working class or lower class in the society. It is not — let me be totally direct — it’s not the rich people. It is not those of us with good salaries, good jobs.” She kept coming back to the idea that the Social Democrats did not change their position for tactical reasons; they did so on principle. They believe that high immigration helps cause economic inequality and that progressives should care above all about improving life for the most vulnerable members of their own society. The party’s position on migration “is not an outlier,” she told me. “It is something we do because we actually believe in it.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A question for progressives:

In general, democrats/liberals in the US support more immigration, amnesty of those here illegally, and other policies that support heterogeneity.

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

Which is more important to progressives? The former or the later?

I already had my own opinions on this but this article made me think of it again today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385035/homogeneity-their-strength-kevin-d-williamson

I have voted D in all elections for full disclosure.

Liberals/SWPL's act the same 'white flightish' ways that caused de-urbanization as well - look at white people commenting regarding cupertino, tj, and other schools if too many asians come in.

People are tribal. It gets expressed in many ways. One way is religion. One way is sports fandom. Another way is politics. Dig down and you’ll realize that aligning with Ds (or Rs) is less about policy and more about your tribal instincts being activated. Just peruse the discussions on this site with that viewpoint and see how “solid” D or Rs talk to each other. And the pressure they put on nonconformists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This should be mandatory reading for all Dem politicians. This is common sense, but for some reason people like to pretend otherwise.

Leftist politics depend on collective solutions in which voters feel part of a shared community or nation, she explained. Otherwise, they will not accept the high taxes that pay for a strong welfare state. “Being a traditional Social Democratic thinker means you cannot allow everyone who wants to join your society to come,” Frederiksen says. Otherwise, “it’s impossible to have a sustainable society, especially if you are a welfare society, as we are.” High levels of immigration can undermine this cohesion, she says, while imposing burdens on the working class that more affluent voters largely escape, such as strained benefit programs, crowded schools and increased competition for housing and blue-collar jobs. Working-class families know this from experience. Affluent leftists pretend otherwise and then lecture less privileged voters about their supposed intolerance.

“There is a price to pay when too many people enter your society,” Frederiksen told me. “Those who pay the highest price of this, it’s the working class or lower class in the society. It is not — let me be totally direct — it’s not the rich people. It is not those of us with good salaries, good jobs.” She kept coming back to the idea that the Social Democrats did not change their position for tactical reasons; they did so on principle. They believe that high immigration helps cause economic inequality and that progressives should care above all about improving life for the most vulnerable members of their own society. The party’s position on migration “is not an outlier,” she told me. “It is something we do because we actually believe in it.”

That’s racist. No thank you. We are a melting pot and always have been a nation of immigrants. White people are just throwing a tantrum because they are no longer #1.

[Anonymous]

This could be true in theory.
But practically, if you live in a pluralistic society. The melting pot of America. You have bikers and orthodox religious practitioners. You have native Americans, 1st gen, 2nd-3rd gen, and Americans so long they don’t know when they came….

There is nothing to do. There is no homogeneity. It’s creepy to think about “making” it so.

Are you just trying to say Democrats will never have a progressive society? Because that’s not true. Can you see the difference of 1900 to 2000 alone?

Op, I can’t get into your argument. It’s theoretical, impractical, and nonsensical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This could be true in theory.
But practically, if you live in a pluralistic society. The melting pot of America. You have bikers and orthodox religious practitioners. You have native Americans, 1st gen, 2nd-3rd gen, and Americans so long they don’t know when they came….

There is nothing to do. There is no homogeneity. It’s creepy to think about “making” it so.

Are you just trying to say Democrats will never have a progressive society? Because that’s not true. Can you see the difference of 1900 to 2000 alone?

Op, I can’t get into your argument. It’s theoretical, impractical, and nonsensical.

Me again. Seriously op, I take you at face value. But come back and take what I’ve said to heart. Figure out a new paradigm. Drop that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This should be mandatory reading for all Dem politicians. This is common sense, but for some reason people like to pretend otherwise.

Leftist politics depend on collective solutions in which voters feel part of a shared community or nation, she explained. Otherwise, they will not accept the high taxes that pay for a strong welfare state. “Being a traditional Social Democratic thinker means you cannot allow everyone who wants to join your society to come,” Frederiksen says. Otherwise, “it’s impossible to have a sustainable society, especially if you are a welfare society, as we are.” High levels of immigration can undermine this cohesion, she says, while imposing burdens on the working class that more affluent voters largely escape, such as strained benefit programs, crowded schools and increased competition for housing and blue-collar jobs. Working-class families know this from experience. Affluent leftists pretend otherwise and then lecture less privileged voters about their supposed intolerance.

“There is a price to pay when too many people enter your society,” Frederiksen told me. “Those who pay the highest price of this, it’s the working class or lower class in the society. It is not — let me be totally direct — it’s not the rich people. It is not those of us with good salaries, good jobs.” She kept coming back to the idea that the Social Democrats did not change their position for tactical reasons; they did so on principle. They believe that high immigration helps cause economic inequality and that progressives should care above all about improving life for the most vulnerable members of their own society. The party’s position on migration “is not an outlier,” she told me. “It is something we do because we actually believe in it.”

That’s racist. No thank you. We are a melting pot and always have been a nation of immigrants. White people are just throwing a tantrum because they are no longer #1.

You’re just reciting platitudes now. The question is is it an easier to have social welfare programs and leftist economic policies in a homogeneous society?

Do you think it’s easier to enact these policies if people are more different from one another and less like their neighbors? Common sense and social science says otherwise.