That in a nutshell is Eduardo Porter's thesis in his NY Times column of today, Race and the Social Contract. Porter, a graduate of Mexico's UNAM who began his journalism career with the Mexican news agency Notimex, is now a member of the NYT's editorial board.
Porter believes that the US needs to make "big investments in the public good" to deal with the "enormous challenge" of "globalization." But that goal is thwarted by our selfishness that in turn is prompted by our diversity.
The columnist begins by noting that, when it comes to taxes and public spending, we rank toward the bottom among developed countries. Now, you might cheer that fact, but Porter sees it as a bad thing. And he cites a number of studies suggesting that in ethnically homogeneous countries, citizens support higher taxes and public spending levels because they're confident their cohorts will be the beneficiaries. But in the more diverse USA, "racial and ethnic antagonism all too frequently limit" public spending.
Porter admits that [emphasis added]:
Americans are not less generous than Europeans. When private charities are included, they probably spend more money for social purposes than Europeans do. But philanthropy allows them to target spending on those they personally believe are deserving, instead of allowing the government to choose.
Now again, many people reading this would see that right to choose as a good thing. But Porter palpably does not. He would wrest control from individuals and give it to government in the name of what he calls "solidarity."
Porter ends with a pious plea to Americans "to transcend group interests for a common national cause." But the very human nature he has so carefully documented suggests that's unlikely. Unwittingly, ironically, Porter is really making the case for greater ethnic homogeneity that would almost surely require tighter immigration controls.
Go figure: Eduardo Porter/Pat Buchanan--same struggle!