Scott Alexander on the Holocaust

[My good post today is at Econlog.]

Scott Alexander has an excellent post discussing Hannah Arendt’s book Eichmann in Jerusalem.  I’d like to discuss a couple points:

What eventually happened we all know too well. Other countries started closing their doors and refusing to accept Jewish refugees. Despite hearing this story a hundred times, the version in Eichmann in Jerusalem was new to me. I had always thought of countries as closing their gates to a few prescient people trying to flee Nazi Germany on their own, or to a few stragglers who managed to escape. The truth is on a much greater scale: the Nazis were willing to let every single Jew in Europe leave, they even had entire bureaucracies trying to make it happen – and the rest of the world wouldn’t cooperate. The blood on the hands of the people who wouldn’t let them in is not just that of a few escapees, but the entire six million.

Scott emphasizes that the primary blame lies with the Nazis.  They did the murdering.  Nonetheless, the decision not to admit Jewish refugees did have horrendous consequences.  At the time, the “America First” movement was quite popular, somewhat anti-Semitic, and very isolationist.  In fairness, I probably would have been isolationist back then, but I’d hope I would not have been anti-refugee. (Interestingly, Trump has revived the term “America First”.)

My commenters seem to believe that what’s right is determined by public opinion polls:

First of all, quinnicapac, Rasmussen, and Reuters all ran polls that showed the majority of Americans supporting the ban of immigrants from those 7 countries. In fact, those 7 countries were also on Obama’s list as countries that wouldn’t qualify under the visa program. So here is the question: is this a democracy where peoples voices get heard, or is this a place where only few get to decide policy?

With that in mind, it’s worth noting that there was far stronger support for rejecting Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler.

Screen Shot 2017-02-02 at 2.34.17 PM

I wonder what Steve Bannon and Steve Miller think about the decisions made in 1940?  And I wonder how they think future historians will judge their current actions?

Scott also notes that the Nazis in Denmark tended to “go native”.  That is, they adopted the local attitudes of the Danes, which tended to be somewhat sympathetic to the plight of the Jews (at least by contemporary standards.)  Scott makes many good points, including this one:

Third, at least during World War II conscience was a collective phenomenon. Why did some countries’ citizens cooperate almost universally with the Final Solution, while others resisted it at every turn? “Culture” is inadequate; there’s not much light between Danish and German culture, but the two countries acted in opposite ways. I’m tempted to credit single individuals; Hitler setting the tone for Germany vs. King Christian setting the tone for Denmark – but do people really respect their leaders that thoroughly? Or is this backwards causation; a country like Denmark would end up with a King like Christian, a country like Germany would elect a Fuhrer like Hitler? I don’t know. The alternative is to posit one of those chaotic networks where tiny differences in initial conditions can compound and lead to very different end states. Arendt herself offers little, beyond saying that Italy saved its Jews out of “the automatic general humanity of an old and civilized people”. Yeah, well, Japan was an old and civilized people too, and we know how that turned out. But what other possibilities are there? All I can think of is maybe looking into the pre-existing anti-Semitism level, but I don’t know if that just passes the explanatory buck.

I think he’s right to be agnostic on this question, but I can’t help pointing out that there actually are significant differences between Danish and German culture.  When I studied neoliberalism back in 2008, I found that Danish culture doesn’t just show significantly more civic virtue than German culture, but by some measures it is well ahead of any other country in the world.  Thus I do find it interesting that Danish culture seemed to make German officers at least somewhat more empathetic than did the cultures of other European countries.

One reason I like immigration is that I don’t share the alt-right view that it is a zero sum game.  I don’t think immigrants will make America worse, I think (in many cases) America will make immigrants better.  One good example is the huge flow of immigrants from southern Italy to America. Southern Italy has perhaps the least civic virtue of any developed economy.  And yet Italian Americans have done quite well.  When I was young there were still concerns that Italian Americans would not assimilate, and the Mafia was widely feared just as terrorists are feared today. Today the concerns about Italian assimilation have almost vanished.  I don’t even recall the last time I heard anyone speaking about the Mafia in anything other that a film history context.  I’m sure the Mafia is still out there, but it’s clearly not as important a part of Italian American culture as it used to be.

The strength of American civic virtue is one reason why I fear Trump much less that many others, even as my contempt for him is unsurpassed. I could see the next Russian leader being just as bad as Putin.  Ditto for the Philippines.  On the other hand, our next President will be far less of a demagogue than Trump.  There’s a reason why Putin is far more popular than Trump.  America will change Trump much more than Trump changes America.

Lorenzo sent me an article about Trump making a complete fool of himself in phone conversations with the leaders of Australia and Mexico.  Not only did he show himself to be a jerk by bragging about his recent victory, he came across as mentally deficient jerk by claiming that he won a very strong victory, when everyone knows he actually won the key states by razor thin margins. He also claimed that he attracted huge crowds for his inaugural address. Then he berated the Australian leader for a deal made with Obama, where the US would accept 1250 refugees out on some Pacific island.  As if this was the fault of the Australian leader, and not Obama.  (Of course I support Obama on this.)  And then this:

Mr Trump told President Peña Nieto in last Friday’s call, according to the Associated Press, which said it reviewed a transcript of part of the conversation: “You have a bunch of bad hombres down there. You aren’t doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn’t, so I just might send them down to take care of it.”

What does that even mean?

Australia and Germany are two of our closest friends, and all Trump seems to do is antagonize them.  Meanwhile he keeps cozying up to Putin, while threatening to prevent China from occupying some small islands.  If there is a method to this madness I fail to see it.

I know that some intellectuals like to be contrarians, and claim that Trump has some sort of ingenious strategy.  For my part, as long as he behaves like he’s mentally deficient, I’m going to assume that he is in fact mentally deficient. Occam’s Razor, etc.


Tags:

 
 
 

29 Responses to “Scott Alexander on the Holocaust”

  1. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    2. February 2017 at 12:36

    “I wonder what Steve Bannon and Steve Miller think about the decisions made in 1940?”

    -It was a necessary step to prevent America’s subversion by people very prone at the time to Marxism and New Deal Democracy. German Jews probably fit best with the USSR, but that was also the worst place to send them to keep them from getting Holocausted, purely due to Hitler’s invasion in 1941. The best place to send the German Jews would probably have been British India, as it had a great shortage of talent at the time, only exacerbated since by emigration.

    “And I wonder how they think future historians will judge their current actions?”

    -They were vastly insufficient to save the West.

    “One reason I like immigration is that I don’t share the alt-right view that it is a zero sum game.”

    -It could even be a negative-sum game.

    “There’s a reason why Putin is far more popular than Trump.”

    -Because Putin is a consensus, competent, generally honest establishment figure who acts civilized. Trump isn’t anything of the sort.

    I suspect Italians became less crime-prone simply due to population aging.

    “If there is a method to this madness I fail to see it.”

    -Treat threats equally.

    Trump is not mentally deficient. He is chronically dishonest.

  2. Gravatar of LK Beland LK Beland
    2. February 2017 at 12:41

    The Gallup poll on the immigration ban is at odds with Reuter’s and Rasmussen’s. 42% in favor, 55% against:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/203264/half-americans-say-trump-moving-fast.aspx

  3. Gravatar of bill bill
    2. February 2017 at 13:23

    Immigration is a positive sum game. For all. For the receiving country, for the sending country and for the immigrant.
    Scott Alexander’s post is excellent and the comment section was really good too (at least the ones I got to).

  4. Gravatar of Russ Abbott Russ Abbott
    2. February 2017 at 13:52

    How do you explain the polls (in your piece) showing that the public supports the ban given your positive view of American civic virtue? Here’s the Reuters poll: https://goo.gl/oP70uo. More Americans approve of the ban than disapprove.

  5. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    2. February 2017 at 14:01

    “For the receiving country, for the sending country and for the immigrant.”

    -It could also be bad for each and every one of these (of course, it’s least likely, but by no means impossible, to be bad for the immigrant). Think about it.

  6. Gravatar of MikeDC MikeDC
    2. February 2017 at 14:33

    Another possibility is that talking about Trump’s intelligence is wholly misplaced because it does not require great intelligence to be president.

    Just like intellectuals like to be contraians, they also like to fancy only the application of their intellectual superiority can solve the problem of which shoes to wear each day.

    Many go further, and think themselves and everyone else into circles about things that really aren’t all that complicated. Rather, I’ve often thought this tendency was sort of a make-work welfare program for the intellectually over-efficient. Like… how could anyone describe the bureaucracy or the tax code or most of academia as anything else?

  7. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    2. February 2017 at 14:37

    Harding, Why am I not surprised by your view on accepting Jewish refugees in 1940?

    LK, Either way, I can’t imagine anyone defending a policy based on polls, especially when it’s close to 50-50.

    Russ, It’s all relative. What do the polls show in other countries?

  8. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    2. February 2017 at 14:39

    MikeDC, I’m not just talking about intelligence. Gerald Ford was not intelligent, but he didn’t make an utter fool of himself every time he talked to a foreign leader.

  9. Gravatar of Jg Jg
    2. February 2017 at 14:45

    A least Scott doesn’t quote from either Vanity Fair or Salon. My confidence is restored a bit. So Scott is suggesting our immigration policies regarding Muslims from either hostile or failed nations is somewhat akin to the world’s failure to re-settle Jews during the 1930s and 1940s. He doesn’t precisely make this link, but this is the flow of his comments starting with Trump’s EO. First, the idea that the Nazis would have just have easily preferred to deport the Jews is a great leap. “we don’t have the resources to humanely deport them; thus, we will annihilate them.” Does this make any sense? It is paradoxical that Scott juxtaposes the plight of the Jews in Europe during WWII and the plight of Middle East Muslim refugees. My hunch is that Muslims from the Middle East and Afghanistan would prefer to annihilate most of the Jews. I say “annihilate” symbolically, although I am sure some would actually prefer the real deal.
    At the end of the day most Americans desire legal and orderly immigration – that’s it. BTW – Pope Pius and the Catholic religious saved more Jews from Nazi terror than any other nation or institution – approximately 200,000.

  10. Gravatar of Lorenzo from Oz Lorenzo from Oz
    2. February 2017 at 14:49

    I would be careful comparing Jewish refugees from Nazi threat in Europe to Muslim refugees who are the majority group in their countries. (Now, minority group refugees from Middle East, stronger analogue.)

    Not everyone is a winner from migration, and how migration policy is done can greatly affect the balance of gains and benefits.

    Immigration policy suffers from being too much a partisan/ideological marker. I find my view (which I try to ground in evidence and democratic theory) of border control yes, selective migration yes, US then could cope fine which significantly higher migration seems to get not set off the correct “markers” on either side.

  11. Gravatar of mbka mbka
    2. February 2017 at 15:17

    Scott,

    I agree on Scott Alexander. His entire post is one big argument about how useful it can be to resist the normalization of madness. So again big kudos to you for taking down every one of the Hardings in your commenters, even though it is a tough grind. It has to be done. History shows that there can be large support for insame policies, but this support can also be eroded.

    On Trumps conversation with the AU prime minister. This is the strongest evidence yet that Trump really is insane. He’s alienating his strongest ally bar none, if possibly the British. Not to mention, to use Morgan’s words, a fellow country club owner and tough immigration stance country. And over what? 1250 refugees for a country of 300 million. (never mind treaties, which the US tears up at will now?).

    The irony: US shoots up Iraq, Libya, Syria, then bans refugees and immigration from these countries. Then the US smugly thumbs its nose at far smaller countries that take in millions of refugees when they’re 10x or 100x smaller. I mean, seriously, it does not get any more pathetic. Truth is, the old adage applies, you break it, you own it. In some ways this is worse than banning Jewish immigration from Europe at a time when the monstrosity of the holocaust was not yet fully known.

  12. Gravatar of keenan keenan
    2. February 2017 at 15:23

    Scott,

    I’ve been reading your blog for about 6 months (and as a result of all the links within macroeconomic blog posts, other macroeconomic blogs as well). However, I have close to 0 training in economics, so I find myself wishing there was a starter guide or something. Any book/textbook/paper/anything you would recommend to build a foundation?

    Thanks.

  13. Gravatar of Ray Lopez Ray Lopez
    2. February 2017 at 15:35

    Sumner admits truth is relative, saying he would have been an isolationist (and but for the Holocaust, Germany arguably winning WWII would not have been so bad; recall Italy, France, most of the Nordic countries, Hungary, many elements of Poland, the Baltic states, Turkey, much of Greece, and arguably most of Europe except the UK was sympathetic to “the right”, as represented by Germany as opposed to “the left” as represented by Russia), however, I wonder what Sumner thinks of the fact that 50 years from now it’s unlikely macro economics as we know it will be around. When the Nth econometrics study shows money is largely neutral (as has Bernanke’s 2002 FAVAR paper), what will Sumner say? Of course he’ll still be around, or his ghost will.

  14. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    2. February 2017 at 16:38

    “Seasoned spymaster

    The woman who ran the secret Thailand ‘black site’ and waterboarded top al-Qaeda prisoners has been named as the new deputy director of the CIA.”

    From AP

    Trump will accept refugees into black sites?

  15. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    2. February 2017 at 16:58

    The “bad hombres” remark reminds me of “take the oil.” The slightest bit of thought and research would show oil fields are hundreds of square miles in Iraq and would require a literal colonial occupation over years. I don’t even know where Trump got the idea. Breitbart and Fox News have their issues, but they don’t advocate colonial occupation of the Middle East.

    The bad hombres remark is similar. Does Trump really know what he’s advocating for? Seriously, what does he think the US military can do in Mexico?

  16. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    2. February 2017 at 16:59

    “The irony: US shoots up Iraq, Libya, Syria, then bans refugees and immigration from these countries.”

    -Is it really a good idea for the U.S. to accept refugees with a grudge against the U.S. (or, for those without a grudge, outright traitors to their country)?

  17. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    2. February 2017 at 17:03

    “The “bad hombres” remark reminds me of “take the oil.” The slightest bit of thought and research would show oil fields are hundreds of square miles in Iraq and would require a literal colonial occupation over years.”

    -As opposed to the wonders of the present situation.

    “Seriously, what does he think the US military can do in Mexico?”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cerro_Gordo

    Ultimately, I’m glad I helped Trump win Michigan.

  18. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    2. February 2017 at 17:04

    BTW, your Econlog post ignores those who predicted no GDP-related problems from Brexit (including me).

  19. Gravatar of Lawrence D’Anna Lawrence D'Anna
    2. February 2017 at 17:28

    Yea, before the debates I got taken in by the Scott Adams, “3d chess” theory that Trump was just outsmarting and manipulating everyone, that all his dumbassery was a careful act. I mean, nobody’s *that* crazy right? Besides if he’s so stupid why does he keep winning? He’s doing something right!

    But something about the debates convinced me that was wrong. He wasn’t just crazy and unpredictable, he was slow and stupid and petty. And everything about his presidency has reinforced that impression. Yes, he as some skills. He’s got an instinct for attracting attention to himself, for trolling and making people freak out. He knows how to provoke a reaction that from the left that will get the right on his side. But when he does something stupid, I think it’s just because he’s stupid. When it looks like he’s being petty, or acting on impulse, or not thinking things through, or not listening to anyone who knows any better, I think it’s because that’s exactly what’s happening.

  20. Gravatar of Bonnie Bonnie
    2. February 2017 at 17:29

    It’s really great to be having this discussion about banning immigrants from certain hot spots in the world. It’s about time since it has been a near continuous thing since the law was passed in 1952 that allows the executive branch to pick and choose which passports to accept. I am a bit puzzled about why it is now a huge deal when a month ago travel bans were part of the standard MO. What is happening here is not normalization of insanity, but people going insane over normal things – in the case of the immigration order.

  21. Gravatar of Lawrence D’Anna Lawrence D'Anna
    2. February 2017 at 17:47

    @ Bonnie

    It’s because Trump explicitly campaigned on banning Muslims, and even though this isn’t a Muslim ban exactly, it’s a nationality ban, it smells enough like a Muslim ban that people assume that excluding muslims is the point. And while Americans are perfectly happy to exclude immigrants and refugees for almost any damn reason or no reason at all, and are perfectly happy to let an out of control executive branch decide who to let in or not based on it’s own unreviewable discretion, excluding them for being Muslim is totally beyond the pale because it’s Bigotry towards Marginalized People which is officially the Worst Thing.

    As long as it’s just a bunch of random people who want a better life getting turned away, no problem. Nobody cares. That’s business as usual. But if you can connect it to identity politics everyone freaks out.

    Similar situation with Anwar al-Awlaki and his 8 year old daughter being killed. Obama uses killer robots to extra-judicially kill a US citizen…. Nobody cares. No big deal, he’s a terrorist anyway. Who needs trials? But Trump said in the campaign that you have to “go after their families”, which is a war crime. Obama’s drone war killed plenty of family members of the intended targets as collateral damage. Nobody cares. As far as anyone knows this is also collateral damage. But Trump promised to commit a war crime, and this kind of sounds like that war crime, so now it’s a big deal, even though it’s the same shit that’s been happening for years.

    Just to be clear I’m not defending Trump here at all, but condemning pre-Trump policy for being if not quite as bad as Trump’s, at least in the same ballpark, with the primary difference being the lack of explicitly horrible rhetoric justifying it.

  22. Gravatar of Cooper Cooper
    2. February 2017 at 17:53

    1. There was nowhere else for Jews to go. They were trapped. We could chose to let them in or let them die. There was no third option. We didn’t let them in so they died by the millions.

    There are other places for Muslim refugees from Syria to go. For the cost of settling one refugee in the US, we can improve the lives of dozens of refugees in Turkish camps. There’s a utilitarian calculus there. We could also provide military support for a safe zone along the Turkish/Syria border.

    2. Nobody seriously thought Jewish refugees were secret Nazi agents or could be recruited by Nazis in the future. There was little risk of Nazi infiltration in the US.

    We have seen evidence that ISIS is using the refugee migration to sneak their members into Europe. There’s also a non-zero risk that Muslims entering the US could be radicalized to carry on the war against infidels in the US.

    I think the US has much stronger vetting procedures than Europe does so the marginal Muslim refugee from Syria is a much lower security risk than the marginal Muslim refugee into Germany. However, if we’re only going to take 50K people/year, why not prioritize the 50K people who we know possess the lowest risk to Americans?

  23. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    2. February 2017 at 18:19

    “We didn’t let them in so they died by the millions.”

    -As the comments at Slate Star Codex point out, most German Jews fled Germany before the Holocaust; it was the Eastern European Jews who were killed in the largest numbers.

    “Nobody seriously thought Jewish refugees were secret Nazi agents or could be recruited by Nazis in the future. There was little risk of Nazi infiltration in the US.”

    -True. The real risk was Communist infiltration, which was all too common among Jews in the United States.

    “However, if we’re only going to take 50K people/year, why not prioritize the 50K people who we know possess the lowest risk to Americans?”

    -Bingo.

  24. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    2. February 2017 at 18:24

    Lawrence D’Anna, right on both counts. Trump has a somewhat better understanding of things than the standard Republican politician, but that doesn’t mean he’s not a dumbass.

  25. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    3. February 2017 at 01:28

    What happened to Harding’s Trump enthusiasm? Frustration that Tillerson and Trump won’t lick Putin’s boots? What is it?

  26. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    3. February 2017 at 01:31

    I thought I posted a theory about the different handling of Jewish refugees in this thread yesterday. Denmark compared to France and so on. Must have gotten lost, I assume I get too old for this, I’m sorry.

  27. Gravatar of Don Don
    3. February 2017 at 22:29

    Is the lesson, that it is hard to immigrate to an isolationist country during the Great Depression? Let’s not forget that the US made a constitutional amendment to ban beer partly to spite German immigrants.

  28. Gravatar of Virginia Virginia
    5. February 2017 at 04:35

    My commenters seem to believe that what’s right is determined by public opinion polls:

    How is that a logical argument? Just because YOU dont believe something is right (and btw, i share the same feeling) doesnt mean your voice, or in this case “our voice”, should get heard over the majority. The whole point of a democracy is to allow the people to decide. Not you. Not me. The people. And the people are, for the most part, supporting it. It is a very slipper slope to say “the majority shouldnt be listened to because its wrong”. Wrong according to who?

  29. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    5. February 2017 at 11:34

    Jg, The Pope? Not sure what your comment has to do with my post.

    Keenan, You could start with Cowen/Tabarrok textbook, or perhaps Mankiw’s textbook. Both are excellent.

    Ray, You said:

    “Sumner admits truth is relative,”

    Where did I “admit” that?

    And I hope macro is gone in 50 years. That means I won. I have lots of posts claiming that NGDP futures targeting will be the end of macro.

    Lawrence, Good point.

    Cooper, I would not be opposed to us paying other countries to take Syrian refugees, as long as the cost was not too high.

    Don, It was also hard during the 1920s.

Leave a Reply