The problem with this fantastical vision is that there’s no reason to think that any country in South/Central America OR Western Europe is up to the challenge.
Without federation or at least confederation the EU will always be a squabbling morass of medium-sized powers. Central & Eastern Europe, frankly, are much more serious actors collectively than the French, Germans & Brits.
And all three of those countries are struggling with sagging, aging economies & their own populist threats,
The U.N., meanwhile, is worse than useless.
This is almost as fantastical a proposal as Soviet Communism.
To some degree, I appreciate your text and I was even waiting for more of such debate to be published at The Unpopulist. At the same time, I believe that a confederation and a new international order are not enough. It would be in several ways repeating the same mistakes and limited expectations.
One reason is that such an order is precisely what was described as a liberal international order, or an intergovernmental order, primarily for governments and nations, rather than for individuals and humans as global citizens. Thereby, not connecting and integrating enough humans around the world. If one thinks that globalisation during 1990-2010 was only about economy and technology, then one is missing the larger picture, such as ideas and processes of globalising democracy and politics.
A more optimal and preferable option would be a new global order based on global democracy, citizenship, and governance within a world federal system. One key institution would be creating a democratically elected world parliament and having world-level governance in a similar way as in the EU. One organisation providing such ideas and proposals is Democracy Without Borders (https://www.democracywithoutborders.org/)
I think America should distance itself from the upcoming ethnic cleansing and annexation of the West Bank by Israel. IMO it is going to happen and we can’t stop it, but we condemn it if it the norm of territorial integrity has to hold. We can’t defend territorial integrity in eastern Ukraine while funding annexation of the West Bank. The left is right about this. It’s the 21st century and we must call out our allies war crimes even more forcefully if we want to maintain the integrity of the norms.
I think this skips all the important steps and as a result fails to imagine this liberal world correctly, focusing on a lot of irrelevant minutiae, instead of the fundamentals.
Firstly, if we had sufficient people to attend conferences that actually support liberal values in numbers that can make any difference, then Trump, MAGA, climate change, socialism, etc, would not be the only options in mainstream political discourse. I think most people today calling themselves "liberal" actually mean "democrats."
A proper definition of liberal requires at least a basic grasp of political theory.
Liberal = support for individual rights and rights-protecting government in politics, which means capitalism in economics.
In practice this means, no departments of education, healthcare, immigration, no regulations in the private sector at all. No climate change wealth redistribution, no solar panels, or windmill nonsense, etc.
The government is not involved in our lives; it merely exists to protect rights. This means the courts, the police, and the armed forces. Nothing else.
Is that what the author of this article, or anyone here for that matter, really supports?
I think that you are mixing up liberalism with libertarianism. There are, for example, historical and modern arguments by liberal thinkers on how to address issues such as climate change, education, and welfare. Even, for example, Hayek was in favor of a basic income guarantee
Libertarians do not believe in ANY government and are ultimately just anarchists. They are also not liberals (who believe in rights-protecting government).
Liberal only means one thing and the problem is that today people who are claiming to be liberals are nothing of the sort.
I think advocating liberal values incorrectly is even worse than just opposing liberal values. All it achieves is undermine the liberal side of the debate with incompetent arguments and helps authoritarians immensely.
Hayek was primarily an economist and his gaps in political philosophy were ultimately show stopping and he did not help in the end.
Politics is just like any other field. Any goal one wants to achieve can *only* be done so by following the correct steps. Nothing else will work. Politically illiterate socialists will not bring about a liberal world order, all they are going to do is help bury it completely.
Such an order, which i support, starts with the UN. The security council must of course cease to exist and some more democratic formation put in place to manage the democratic principles out lined in the UN charter
I have written theee articles about “Post American Europe" that can be interest to you:
In the first article, I examine the historical roots of the European Union (EU): Europe was an ecology of competing, often warring jurisdictions that, after the Second World War, were integrated into the American Pax Democratica. Our generational challenge is to maintain the greatest American legacy: the EU.
In the second article, the complex governance of the EU is characterised as a nomocracy, a harmonising and consociational confederacy which is less efficient but more robust than the other large international actors. Minimalistic institutional reform is proposed to strengthen European democracies in the age of populism.
The final instalment proposes policies to address technological dependency and the foreign policy stance of the post-American Europe: technological sovereignty, competition reform, and a renewed liberal order in Europe's near abroad:
But there's a reason he was elected last year despite all the warnings from his first term and even the appalling January 6th.
Yes the Dems blew it and remain so for now.
But democracy will recover, eventually learn from Biden / Obama and now Trump.
A long check list of how not to.
Historically it's arrived in a blink, radically successful in doing so, is nothing less than the 3rd revolution since the last ice age.
But yes it doesn't run itself.
And as we see lately it’d prone to identity abuse from the racist Left and the Populist Right.
But where there's an effective full franchise then sense should hopefully prevail in the end.
Meanwhile thank heavens globally for the warts and all USA! That Britain prevailed in N America.
On the other side this benighted Russia keeps digging its demise, if at a fearful price in a war the mindless West should never have let happen.
Iran's cooked and today’s demographically failing China is lost in an Old World nationalist haze which will not end well because as democracies know well they’re simply driving the wrong model.
I agree now, although prior to Donald Trump arriving on the scene, I was all for American hegemony, especially when contrasted with the weakness shown by the EU and America's NATO allies (like Canada, where I am based). Not anymore. The first step is for the rest of NATO to make good on their promise to beef up defense, since they cannot stand up to Trump while being dependent on US protection. Then, a new alliance including all full democracies needs to be created to replace the United States as the principle guardian of the Free World. The EU, UK, Japan, Canada, Australia etc. together are more then rich and capable enough to do it. All they need is the will and the organization.
The problem with this fantastical vision is that there’s no reason to think that any country in South/Central America OR Western Europe is up to the challenge.
Without federation or at least confederation the EU will always be a squabbling morass of medium-sized powers. Central & Eastern Europe, frankly, are much more serious actors collectively than the French, Germans & Brits.
And all three of those countries are struggling with sagging, aging economies & their own populist threats,
The U.N., meanwhile, is worse than useless.
This is almost as fantastical a proposal as Soviet Communism.
To some degree, I appreciate your text and I was even waiting for more of such debate to be published at The Unpopulist. At the same time, I believe that a confederation and a new international order are not enough. It would be in several ways repeating the same mistakes and limited expectations.
One reason is that such an order is precisely what was described as a liberal international order, or an intergovernmental order, primarily for governments and nations, rather than for individuals and humans as global citizens. Thereby, not connecting and integrating enough humans around the world. If one thinks that globalisation during 1990-2010 was only about economy and technology, then one is missing the larger picture, such as ideas and processes of globalising democracy and politics.
A more optimal and preferable option would be a new global order based on global democracy, citizenship, and governance within a world federal system. One key institution would be creating a democratically elected world parliament and having world-level governance in a similar way as in the EU. One organisation providing such ideas and proposals is Democracy Without Borders (https://www.democracywithoutborders.org/)
All of this can sound impossible and utopian, but one interesting thing is that the same technology of decentralization, endorsed by Trump-supporting tech bros, can also be used for humans to cooperate and co-create local and global-level solutions and initiatives. https://wfm-igp.org/federalist-paper/the-dao-and-the-dao-finding-a-path-to-govern-the-world/
I think America should distance itself from the upcoming ethnic cleansing and annexation of the West Bank by Israel. IMO it is going to happen and we can’t stop it, but we condemn it if it the norm of territorial integrity has to hold. We can’t defend territorial integrity in eastern Ukraine while funding annexation of the West Bank. The left is right about this. It’s the 21st century and we must call out our allies war crimes even more forcefully if we want to maintain the integrity of the norms.
I think this skips all the important steps and as a result fails to imagine this liberal world correctly, focusing on a lot of irrelevant minutiae, instead of the fundamentals.
Firstly, if we had sufficient people to attend conferences that actually support liberal values in numbers that can make any difference, then Trump, MAGA, climate change, socialism, etc, would not be the only options in mainstream political discourse. I think most people today calling themselves "liberal" actually mean "democrats."
A proper definition of liberal requires at least a basic grasp of political theory.
Liberal = support for individual rights and rights-protecting government in politics, which means capitalism in economics.
In practice this means, no departments of education, healthcare, immigration, no regulations in the private sector at all. No climate change wealth redistribution, no solar panels, or windmill nonsense, etc.
The government is not involved in our lives; it merely exists to protect rights. This means the courts, the police, and the armed forces. Nothing else.
Is that what the author of this article, or anyone here for that matter, really supports?
I think that you are mixing up liberalism with libertarianism. There are, for example, historical and modern arguments by liberal thinkers on how to address issues such as climate change, education, and welfare. Even, for example, Hayek was in favor of a basic income guarantee
Libertarians do not believe in ANY government and are ultimately just anarchists. They are also not liberals (who believe in rights-protecting government).
Liberal only means one thing and the problem is that today people who are claiming to be liberals are nothing of the sort.
I think advocating liberal values incorrectly is even worse than just opposing liberal values. All it achieves is undermine the liberal side of the debate with incompetent arguments and helps authoritarians immensely.
Hayek was primarily an economist and his gaps in political philosophy were ultimately show stopping and he did not help in the end.
Politics is just like any other field. Any goal one wants to achieve can *only* be done so by following the correct steps. Nothing else will work. Politically illiterate socialists will not bring about a liberal world order, all they are going to do is help bury it completely.
Such an order, which i support, starts with the UN. The security council must of course cease to exist and some more democratic formation put in place to manage the democratic principles out lined in the UN charter
To reform the UN, it is not enough to have trust or expectations from governments. We as individuals and communities need to contribute as well. https://www.democracywithoutborders.org/unwci-campaign/
I have written theee articles about “Post American Europe" that can be interest to you:
In the first article, I examine the historical roots of the European Union (EU): Europe was an ecology of competing, often warring jurisdictions that, after the Second World War, were integrated into the American Pax Democratica. Our generational challenge is to maintain the greatest American legacy: the EU.
https://www.frenchdispatch.eu/p/post-american-europe-historical-roots-eu-integration?r=biy76&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
In the second article, the complex governance of the EU is characterised as a nomocracy, a harmonising and consociational confederacy which is less efficient but more robust than the other large international actors. Minimalistic institutional reform is proposed to strengthen European democracies in the age of populism.
https://www.frenchdispatch.eu/p/post-american-europe-eu-rule-based-democracy-authoritarianism?r=biy76&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
The final instalment proposes policies to address technological dependency and the foreign policy stance of the post-American Europe: technological sovereignty, competition reform, and a renewed liberal order in Europe's near abroad:
https://www.frenchdispatch.eu/p/post-american-europe-eu-technological-sovereignty-liberal-order?r=biy76&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Trump's a moron, if not a complete idiot.
But there's a reason he was elected last year despite all the warnings from his first term and even the appalling January 6th.
Yes the Dems blew it and remain so for now.
But democracy will recover, eventually learn from Biden / Obama and now Trump.
A long check list of how not to.
Historically it's arrived in a blink, radically successful in doing so, is nothing less than the 3rd revolution since the last ice age.
But yes it doesn't run itself.
And as we see lately it’d prone to identity abuse from the racist Left and the Populist Right.
But where there's an effective full franchise then sense should hopefully prevail in the end.
Meanwhile thank heavens globally for the warts and all USA! That Britain prevailed in N America.
On the other side this benighted Russia keeps digging its demise, if at a fearful price in a war the mindless West should never have let happen.
Iran's cooked and today’s demographically failing China is lost in an Old World nationalist haze which will not end well because as democracies know well they’re simply driving the wrong model.
I agree now, although prior to Donald Trump arriving on the scene, I was all for American hegemony, especially when contrasted with the weakness shown by the EU and America's NATO allies (like Canada, where I am based). Not anymore. The first step is for the rest of NATO to make good on their promise to beef up defense, since they cannot stand up to Trump while being dependent on US protection. Then, a new alliance including all full democracies needs to be created to replace the United States as the principle guardian of the Free World. The EU, UK, Japan, Canada, Australia etc. together are more then rich and capable enough to do it. All they need is the will and the organization.
Would you wager its an awfully large burden anyways?