Nepotism and global politics

I imagine that most readers don’t spend a great deal of time thinking about the practice of nepotism. In this post, I won’t try to convince you that nepotism is good or bad, rather I’ll try to show that nepotism provides a useful entry point to thinking about contemporary trends in the politics of many countries.

Conservatives often speak of the importance of family, faith, and the flag.  But just how much weight should we place on family, religion and the nation?  Consider the following sliding scales of intensity:

1. No religion <—–>  moderate religion <—–>  intense religion

2. Cosmopolitanism <—–> moderate nationalism <—–> intense nationalism

3. Pure egalitarianism <—–> Nordic family values <—–> strong familial favoritism

People often describe intense religion as “religious fanaticism”, a phrase with a negative connotation.  Although I am not religious, it’s not obvious to me why intense adherence to a set of beliefs viewed as both good and important is a bad thing.  In this post I’ll try to steer clear of value judgements.

Here I am most interested in the second and third issues, attitudes toward families and nations.  A cosmopolitan might call him or herself a “citizen of the world”, and claim no favoritism toward the country of their birth.  A person with moderate nationalism might be strongly opposed to the sort of intense nationalism seen in places like Russia, and yet to some extent favor social programs aiding domestic residents over those of foreign countries.

In much of the world, it is considered unethical not to exhibit a strong favoritism toward those with a blood relationship.  In contrast, family bonds are weaker in places such as Northern Europe, where nepotism in hiring is widely viewed as unethical.  Not very many people exhibit absolutely no familial favoritism, but you can imagine a person who grumbles that they get to choose their friends but not their family, and has friendly relationships with those with similar interests, not those who are close relatives. 

I grew up in a culture that gravitated toward the “moderate” position on all three sliding scales, and I have no interest in supporting or criticizing that position.  Instead, I’m interested in thinking about logic behind each position, particularly on the final two sliding scales (attitudes toward one’s nation and family).  Why is it so hard to determine which attitude is appropriate?  Is the “golden mean” approach I grew up with just lazy thinking?  Recall Thomas De Quincey’s famous jest:

A golden mean is certainly what every man should aim at. But it is easier talking than doing; and, my infirmity being notoriously too much milkiness of heart, I find it difficult to maintain that steady equatorial line between the two poles of too much murder on the one hand and too little on the other.

Why do the cases above seem different from those where one of the extremes is obviously preferable?  Here it will be useful to think about two terms that have very different connotations: bias and solidarity.

In America, bias is considered so unethical that there are all sorts of laws against showing favoritism toward one group as opposed to another.  In contrast, solidarity has a positive connotation, obviously linked to patriotism and family values, but also to labor union solidarity and even loyalty to a sports team. But bias and solidarity are two sides of the same coin.

I would be hard pressed to give you any “rational” reason for my support of the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team.  I haven’t lived in Wisconsin for more than 40 years, and even when I did it was not in Milwaukee.  On the other hand, it’s pretty easy to explain why I am a Bucks fan.  That was the local team on TV when I began following the NBA in 1968, and once hooked I stayed with them.   Similarly, people usually (but not always) favor the religion, nation and family of their youth.

Nepotism is a strong form of family values, or familial favoritism.  It may seem obvious to you that nepotism is unethical.  But many (most?) people around the world do not feel that way.  Indeed they might find your refusal to engage in nepotism to be deeply unethical.  Sociologists use the acronym WEIRD to describe our culture (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic.) 

In my view, the tension between solidarity and bias is increasingly driving recent trends in politics.  Authoritarian nationalism tends to lean toward the center and right side of those three sliding scales, with some important exceptions.  Liberalism leans more toward the center and left side of the three scales, again with important exceptions.

The concept of tradition probably plays a bigger role on the right than on the left.  In places like Russia, liberals are criticized (perhaps unfairly) for abandoning religion, family values and patriotism.  A liberal might respond that supporting the concept of gay marriage is actually consistent with family values.  When conservatives criticize things like gay rights, trans rights and abortion, I think they implicitly have in mind the idea that once you start down that road, you end up with a sort of radical individualism, which erodes the solidarity underpinning family and nation.  If there is no logical reason not to allow people to follow any particular lifestyle, then (some might argue) there’s no logical reason for me not to switch from the Bucks to the Celtics, or not to switch from rooting for the US winter olympics team to the Norwegian winter olympics team.

In some cases, there is tension even within a given ideological framework.  My favorite example is the Dutch right-wing politician Pim Fortuyn, who opposed Muslim immigration because he feared that it threatened the Netherland’s “traditional values” of liberalism in areas such as gay rights.  French conservatives have complained when women from different cultures did not wear bikinis on the beach.  So there are important exceptions, cases where people don’t line up the same way on all three scales.

[Recall the famous paradox: Should liberals tolerate the intolerant?]

Some pundits have noted that blue collar workers are switching from the left to the right in many countries.  This can be understood as a reaction to the collapse of communism.  As the working class’s socialist dream seemed increasingly unrealistic, politics shifted to a focus on issues of identity.  Left wing labor union activism and right wing nationalism can both be seen as putting more emphasis on solidarity than bias.  From that perspective, the working class’s core ideology has not shifted, rather the issues have changed. In contrast, liberals tend to worry a lot about bias, and place less emphasis on family or national solidarity.

Proposals to address global warming suffer from an “externality problem.”  Thus it’s no surprise that the very same voters that showed labor union solidarity when voting socialist in the 20th century now show national solidarity when voting for right wing parties that oppose carbon taxes. Most of the gains from carbon taxes go to foreigners, while most of the costs are borne at home.

To summarize, the politics in the 20th century tended to split along the lines of socialism vs. capitalism.  In the 21st century, the fault line seems to be attitudes toward the relative importance of bias and solidarity.

PS.  Elsewhere, I’ve argued that nationalism and patriotism are two very different things.  Here I’ve steered clear of that thorny topic.