Mark Steyn earned his place in the pantheon of magnificent
conservative writers due to his personal ability, skill, and
God-given wit — which turns out to be a highly unusual method for
establishing oneself nowadays. After beginning as a theatre and
film critic, he progressed to political commentary where he has
become among the liveliest, most irreverent, and original of
conservative voices. A former “Culture Vultures” columnist for
The American Spectator and North American correspondent
(and movie reviewer) for the Spectator of London, he now
writes regularly for the Chicago Sun-Times and
National Review. His books include the brilliantly
original Broadway Babies Say Goodnight: Musicals Then and
Now (1999) and, most recently, America Alone: The End
of the World as We Know It.
BC: Mr. Steyn, congratulations on the
success of America Alone. Sales remain strong seven months the
book’s release. What in its message so captivates readers? Does it
appeal to non-conservatives?
Mark Steyn: I think my book repositions the war
on terror within a broader context, which is exactly what a lot of
people are looking for. The immediate visceral anger after
September 11th has now dissipated; one simply can’t remain angry
for five years straight. The Afghan campaign and fall of Saddam
Hussein have receded in our minds. America Alone places
those situations within the broader context of a weakened Western
world and a resurgent Islam. It’s the big picture. My book ties
together the present state of the Western world, Islamic
fundamentalism, and the way in which those trends intersect. That’s
what makes it appealing.
As for the left, in large part they are in denial about what’s
happening in the world. I would have welcomed a thorough liberal
criticism of my book as the pointing out of its flaws would have
been appreciated, but that isn’t what happened. The New York
Times declined to review it. When it began appearing on their
best-seller list they described it with the words, “a conservative
columnist argues,” which alerts readers that they shouldn’t buy it.
A Globe and Mail reviewer said it was the most vulgar book
ever written, so that gave him the excuse of finding it too
aesthetically repugnant to bother with. I’m staggered at the way
the left denies what is obvious to everyone else in the world
today.
Clearly, the West shows all the classic signs of exhaustion.
Americans are part of a continuous trend afflicting Western Europe.
It’s these subtler incremental changes that are of biggest concern
as opposed to the guys flying planes into buildings. If you said on
9/11 that Islam was the principal issue no one would argue with
you, but back on 9/11/2000, journalists didn’t even know the names
of the terrorist organizations or the men who led them. Whether or
not Muslims are a statistical majority within society is not the
major issue. They only need to make up 20 percent of the population
for the nature of our society to be entirely changed.
BC: Why does demographic change equate with
political change? Also, what would you say to those who believe
that majority Islam is not synonymous with fundamentalist
Islam?
Mark Steyn: Fundamentalist is a term we use
rather carelessly. Very few people take the trouble to become
suicide bombers and that’s good news, but the reality is that
substantial numbers of Muslims agree with the aims of the Jihadists
even if they don’t choose to blow themselves up. When Muslims in
the West are polled, 40 to 60 percent wish to live under Sharia and
wish to reside in the United Kingdom and the United States as
opposed to Saudi Arabia. They may disagree with the means but they
entirely support the ends. The goal is an Islamic republic in the
UK, the U.S. or the Netherlands, and that provides the radicals
with a lot of cushion. Remember, the running of a community is
mostly done by its most aggressive, extremist elements.
BC: How much is the soft-socialism of the
welfare state to blame for the West’s reproductive failure? Why
does the general public remain so baffled by the incompetent nature
of the state?
Mark Steyn: Well, I do believe that eventually
the nanny state turns us all into children so when grown ups become
children then it is not astonishing for them to become
disinterested in having children of their own. One of the striking
features of the modern socialist state is the prolonged adolescence
of its citizens. I was in Australia and a demographer put up slides
of the country’s past and future demographics. It was remarkable,
because in the 19th century a 14-year-old who farmed was considered
basically an adult because he was doing at that age what he’d be
doing for the rest of his life. The average boy in 1873 didn’t have
the luxury of being preoccupied with iPods or entertaining himself.
Nowadays we live much longer than we used to, but prolonged
adolescence is the result. One of the results of this mindset is a
collapsing birthrate, but those communities who think differently
from us are the ones who will shape the future. Is there any
denying that the future belongs to the people who show up for it?
Utopian societies are not self-sustaining and never have been.
BC: How soon before America becomes as
socialistic as Europe?
Mark Steyn: I think half of America is there
already. Half of the nation thinks the ideal destination of a
civilized society is Scandinavia and that the United States is
taking too long to get there. While I think that socialism is a
blinkered and terrible idea, that doesn’t prevent the rest of the
country from embracing it. Look at the early presidential
platforms: those candidates think there’s no limit to what
government should do for us. That’s the last thing I want. I’m a
minimalist who wants government to be as limited as possible. The
way we talk about state-funded programs is totally wrong anyway.
Even if they didn’t increase the deficit and Bill Gates wrote
checks to cover their annual outlays, the programs would still be
misguided. The belief that when there’s a problem government must
act is in fact the real problem. Down in New Orleans, FEMA did not
perform well. So what? This should not have surprised anyone. When
catastrophe strikes they eventually arrive, but the real issue is
what is the community’s backup plan when government isn’t around. A
government that can be everywhere at once is not a government to be
desired; it is one to be feared.
