If there is a Third World politician who does not believe blood is thicker than water, he or she has probably been overthrown in a coup. It is the rule of Iraq, the rule of Iran.[5] It is China.[6] It is Latin America and Africa. It is, in ever growing frequency, the rule in Europe and the United States, too. Whether Third World or World Bank, that rule is "mine, first."
It's also one of the two default states of mankind. The other is "me first." This latter occurs, for example, when environmentalist Cape Cod liberals invoke "Not In My Back Yard" to prevent the construction of energy saving windmills.
We are, each of us, descended from people who decided, generation upon generation, that their gene pool came first. The sociologists' term for it is "amoral familism." Note that that's "amoral," not necessarily "immoral." It's difficult to call something "immoral" that's in our very genes.
Nor is this amoral familism by any means arbitrary. The connection to family is real. It is natural. It is, moreover, reinforced by close and intimate personal knowledge. It is also within the very natural human limit of what any person can really know or personally care about.
On the other hand, it's even more difficult to call the Annans' tax fraud and coverup moral behavior. Still less so Soros' raid on the Bank of England, mandatory kickbacks and bribes to line the pockets of dictators' and bureaucrats' nephews, and—not least—the fraudulent scamming of little Maritza's twenty-seven cents. This is so, even though it may be in the genes.
* * *
Camouflage is also in the genes, for some species of predators. The predator, Man, being rather white or black or brown or yellow or red and, in any case, generally shiny and of regular shape, has to create his own. Some human predators, descended no less than we from Og, the caveman, have to disguise themselves no less than did Og, if they, the wives and the kiddies are going to eat (and live in that Darien mansion or Manhattan penthouse).
For many of these, Cosmopolitanism is a cloak, the cloak behind which they can hide tax frauds and currency raids, insider trading and charity scams, graft and corruption and nepotism.
This doesn't mean that every cosmopolitan is a lying, scheming, greedy, hypocritical, dishonest predator. No doubt many are sincere, honest, selfless and, at a personal level, generally admirable in the conduct of their own lives. They sincerely believe that any distinction between peoples is arbitrary and therefore illegitimate. It may even be true, though it is no doubt rare, that they give no preference to their own little families over the Family of Man.
"By conceding that a morally arbitrary boundary such as the boundary of the nation has a deep and formative role in our deliberations, we seem to be depriving ourselves of any principled way of arguing to citizens that they should in fact join hands across these other barriers."
—Martha Nussbaum[7]
Arbitrariness appears to be one of the three core principles of cosmopolitanism; the others being, let us say, the complementary "Wouldn't it be nice?" and "Isn't it so awful?" When those for whom cosmopolitanism is more than camouflage ask those questions, in one form or another, they do have a point: it (life, the universe and everything) can be pretty awful and perhaps a more cosmopolitan world might be nice. Dull? Yes, probably, but that's not the worst imaginable world, is it?[8]
To concede those things, however, is not to concede much, for "Isn't it so awful?" does not mean it can't be or won't become worse, anymore that "Wouldn't it be nice?" proves that it will or even can be better.
Those we will take up later. For now, let's look into the concept of arbitrariness.
It really is wrong, you know, to hate people on sight merely because they look a little different. It is as wrong to hate people just for being born on one side of a border rather than another. It doesn't follow from those, however, that it is morally obligatory to love them on sight merely because they look a little bit the same or were born on the same side of the border as you. One reason why it isn't morally obligatory to love all of mankind for looking a little bit the same is that it isn't really possible to do so. Love, if it's to mean anything, is a fairly intense emotion and there's only so much of it any individual has to spread around. Even Kos saves most of his for his immediate family.
Hate and love aren't really the choices though. Between them are such variables as like and dislike, trust and distrust. There's also indifference.
I'm not convinced that the cosmopolitan notion of arbitrariness holds any water at all. It seems to me that the accident, the one truly arbitrary factor, is being born. Given that, it is no accident that a particular person is born to a particular culture and gene pool, that one is of a particular family.[9] Unless people are purely fungible, and perhaps completely malleable, it is no accident that one is a product of those two factors. Really, one cannot be anything but a product of them. It is not accident, neither is it arbitrary, to like or dislike, to trust or distrust, based on genuine, natural similarities, acceptance of similar values, a common gene pool and a common culture.
Still, perhaps the question is not about accident, but about choice. If not quite accidental, it is true at the least that we didn't have a lot of choice in the nation, culture and family to which we were born. So then, is lack of choice in the matter what makes distinctions between people arbitrary? Yes, but.
Choice is a problem to the cosmopolitan ideal, as is free will. Those very things they decry as arbitrary are, in fact, the results of some very non-arbitrary choices made in the past, distant or recent. Someone said, "I like this hunk of dirt. I think I'll stay, of my own free will, and raise a family; maybe get together with the neighbors at need," and thus was born a distinction, non-arbitrary at first, that would condemn the rest of us to an arbitrary future. Just as truly, someone said, "I'm tired of this piece of dirt. I think I'll move on, of my own free will, and perhaps take a few of the more agreeable neighbors along with me," and that, too, set for some of us an arbitrary future. For still others, it was, "I like the color of that man," or "I don't like the shade or shape of that woman," and there, again, voluntary, non-arbitrary choices were made that became arbitrary for the rest of us.
And who can doubt but that—go ahead and set the clock back to zero—still more non-arbitrary choices would be made in the cosmopolitan future, unless it were somehow possible to eliminate free will, preference and choice. But that is an inhuman future. I believe I mentioned things could be worse.
"Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat."
—Muhammad Ali
The United States, Canada, Australia and some other settler nations represent a problem for the cosmopolitan, and, especially in the case of the United States, in more ways than one.