Anti-Diversity, Racist or Neither?

"Can you think of other institutions, such as marriage or military units, in which the less people have in common, the more cohesive they are?" asked Tucker Carlson.

I most certainly can, and I find it interesting -- and embarrassing -- that a leading conservative commentator cannot. Indeed, I can think of many different types of institutions where this is the case, and it seems like it can often be the case even in marriages. (It's obviously true for the military, at least for certain matters.)

The "I'm just asking questions" stance here is indeed difficult for the left, because the institutions I have in mind are firms and markets. In both of those, diversity and specialization mean more opportunity to cooperate -- and higher profits.

Talking about that would be awkward for the left, wouldn't it? But if that's not the answer... what is?

There is also a hint here of the misconception that holds that society is supposed to do some particular thing, all of us together, and that a society that lacks this kind of militaristic unity is a failure.

But a good society is one in which many different goals can all be pursued independently, and at once, without necessarily sacrificing anyone's pursuit of happiness in the process. Indeed, the pursuit of diverse goals, in the context of a social order that privileges none of them, makes a society more resilient on the whole, because each of us can then build on the achievements of others.

Indeed, I'm not really sure how the left can justify the slogan "Diversity is strength" without Hayekian social thought. But with Hayekian social thought, nothing is easier.