Interesting article today in the NY Times about
̄Dutch problems with multiculturalism.
One thing I notice is the description of Geert Wilders, who is described as preaching a message that "combines racist language with calls for more social spending".
Nowadays, given the the way that the language of human rights is so often debased for political purposes, terms like "racist" have far less legitimacy than they once did. And given the hyper-partisanship that abounds, accusations of racism often amount to little more than pandering to the crowd.
Basically, "racist" is in the eye of the beholder. So many of Wilders' claimed views
on Muslims and immigrants are exactly paralleled by similarly extreme viewpoints that are routinely expressed about Israel and Israelis by many members of the left: Yet somehow neither the NY Times nor the Economist, BBC, or most other mainstream publications see fit to qualify the viewpoints or associated language as "racist". If it is "racist" to insist that all immigrants should leave Europe, is it not "racist" to insist that all Jews must leave the Middle East? If scapegoating Muslims for the problems of Europe is "fascist", is it not equally "fascist" to scapegoat Israelis for the problems of the Middle East, as left-wingers routinely do?
Given the extreme views that Wilders is reported to have, I can certainly believe that "racist" might be an accurate way of characterizing his language -- but the NY Times needs to show this by quoting the supposedly racist language, rather than simply asserting it.
