Guest post by Martha Careful
A couple of months ago a “spontaneous strike erupted” among
employees at the world’s most-visited museum, the Louvre. In protest over
overwhelming crowds and chronic understaffing, employees refused to take their
posts on Monday, forcing the iconic Paris museum to shut its doors. But the
crowds and unmoving lines weren’t always this way, and to understand how bad
they’ve gotten, one must understand how nice a visit to the Louvre used to be.
I
first visited Paris 25 years ago. The Louvre was simply extraordinary, and even
from the outside it is breathtaking. But on the inside, my personal favorite is
the Marie de’ Medici cycle, a series of 24 giant
paintings by Peter Paul Rubens chronicling the life of Marie de’ Medici, the
widow of French King Henry IV. There is also Winged Victory, Venus de Milo, and
paintings by everyone from Rembrandt to Jacques-Louis David to Raphael.
But,
as everyone knows, the most famous and the most sought-after artwork in the
Louvre is Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa. I remember walking into the room that
held her. There were a lot of people, but it wasn’t crowded per se. You could
easily walk around, and eventually you could get fairly close and try and
examine her famous smile.
Since
that first visit, I’ve been back to Paris many times, including a few visits to
the Louvre itself. About a month ago I went once again, this time with my
sister and brother-in-law. The first thing I have to say is that the throng of
people in the museum was extraordinary. The line just to get through security
was more than two hours!
Once inside, as the Mona Lisa was on the top of my sister’s must-see list, we headed there. The museum was as crowded as I’ve ever seen it, but you could mostly navigate around. But when we arrived at the room with da Vinci’s masterpiece, it was like something I’d never seen. It was simply insane. You were shuttled through ropes towards the masterpiece and then out on either side before actually getting within 10 feet of her. What’s worse, almost every single person was holding up their phones to take a picture or a selfie, so it was virtually impossible to get even a good glimpse of the presumed Italian beauty.
The
experience was simply sad. The building I had experienced a quarter century
before was the same. The works were largely the same. But the museum experience
was … not. No, now there were so many people in the museum that the thing one
remembers is not standing there pondering what was behind that enigmatic smile,
but rather feeling like a steer in the middle of a cattle drive being prodded
along with no focus on anything other than not getting trampled.
I’m
no expert, but I don’t think that’s the goal of any museum. The goal of
allowing ever more people in, while egalitarian, actually diminishes the
experience for everyone.
So
too with the West. By any measure, Western nations have built the most free,
prosperous and advanced civilization in human history. Everything from cars to
flight to nuclear power to advanced agriculture to television to computers to
MRI machines and more, western culture has been almost exclusively behind the
advances civilization has made over the last 500 years. The result has been the
creation of nations that are largely more free, prosperous and functional than
any in the world. Which is of course, why people want to come here.
But
the problem is, like the Louvre and the Mona Lisa, too many people simply
overwhelm the system and destroy the experience for everyone. But at least at
the Louvre visitors buy tickets with money that is then used to maintain the
museum and pay for its operations. Not so with nations.
Most
of the illegal immigrants crossing rivers and seas and borders to move to the
West are not paying to maintain them. In fact, not only do Western nations have
to support them, but most bring with them values and cultures that are anathema
to the very ideas that made Western civilization successful in the first place,
i.e. Christianity, individual freedom, and capitalism.
It’s
the equivalent of visitors being allowed to sneak in the back door of the
Louvre then painting graffiti everywhere before starting barbecues in the rooms
and using the artwork as kindling. Eventually, the museum would not only run
out of masterpieces to burn, but once everything was gone, the building itself
would be taken apart piece by piece and carted off. Thereafter, the progeny of
the legitimate visitors and the vandals alike would be left standing by the
River Seine looking at the ruins and wondering what used to stand there.
Would
anyone say that such a scenario would be a good thing? That somehow the Louvre
benefited from its new “undocumented” or “irregular” visitors? The answer is
clearly “No.”
Just
as is true on the small scale, it applies equally, if not more on a larger
scale because while the Louvre’s works are generally displayed in the museum
itself, the West has not only created a civilization that benefits itself, but
it’s created one that has helped bring billions of people around the world out
of abject poverty.
It’s
understandable that Westerners have sympathy for the conditions others’
experience. The sad reality is that poverty, scarcity, war, and tyranny remain
problems for many places, as they have for most of the world throughout human
history. That’s troubling and most people who are relatively better off would
feel some pull to try and help. But the question is, does allowing tens of
millions of people from failed or war-torn or dysfunctional nations to enter
the West make the world a better place? For those who escape to the West, it
most certainly does. But for the West itself, not so much. Overwhelmed schools,
hospitals, governments, communities, trillions of dollars of debt spending and
increased rates of crime and social discord. Clearly not better.
The
French national motto is “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” or
Liberty, equality, fraternity. The West has taken the idea of equality and made
it first among equals in terms of objectives over the last half century, and
they’re well on their way of achieving it. But not in the way our leaders
promised. No, rather than helping to bring freedom and prosperity to the rest
of the world, they’re making the world equal by destroying those very things
within their own countries, the outliers that escaped the history of man.
This
should be obvious to anyone paying attention, but the elites, living in their
gated communities, with their bodyguards and their Swiss bank accounts, never
have to actually interact with the unwashed masses who live with the realities
driven by their policies. No, they get private tours of the Louvre, fly on
private jets, and enjoy private club memberships, all while making policies the
consequences of which they never actually have to experience.
For
anyone who loves art, the Louvre becoming a cattle drive is not a good thing.
For anyone who loves liberty and prosperity, the West becoming a borderless
society is a terrible thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment