Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Drawing North America
Mdms. Lopez and Malkin doubtless agree with tdaxp that ethnic multiculturalism would be disasterous for the United States. The left's strangehold on universities does real harm, pumping out teachers who believe in multiculturalism and subtly encouraging counter-cultural moments like the above flag debacle.
Happily, that form of apartheid is very weak. America is a "melting pot," in which cultures cannot be kept distinct and separate.
Against the wishes of those who wish to see all identities blurred equally, in America the American identity comes out on top..
But our need for Mexican immigrants goes beyond that, and even beyond the business interests that are often used. America (the United States of America) and Mexico (the Mexican United States) were both conceived as multinational economic and political unions, no less than the European Union. Growth, expansion, and geographic union are in the DNAs of our Unions. With different Constitutions and different political traditions, the USA and MUS were born as complex adaptive systems -- pragmatic attempts to create liberty and happiness for the North American people. It is the will of the Mexican people to organize themselves into a federal' democratic, representative Republic composed of free and sovereign States in all that concerns their internal government' but united in a Federation established according to the principles of this fundamental law, no less than that of the American people
The next stage is clear. Combine the American United States and United States of Mexico into one political union under the US Constitution. Our way works -- that's why Mexicans are coming here -- so why not export our rules over there? There is nothing sacred about 50 member states belonging to this union, so add Nayarit to New York, Morelos to Montana, Oaxaca to Oregon, and expand our federal, democratic, representative, economic & political union to 81 free and sovereign States.
We can do it.
While I am not attached to the number of states today... such a plan does worry me because of the language implications. In the US, the de facto language is English... while in Mexico it is Spanish... I foresee that being a rather large problem... not just in terms of communication with businesses and even law enforcement... but also in education.
Imagine the day when a small population of _____ speakers attempt to enroll their children in schools in a predominantly non _____ speaking area... most schools would not be able to accommodate them, likely leading to the requirement of a second set of schools, one for the _____ and one for the non _____ speakers. Quite pricy really... not to mention the inevitable lawsuits from those _____ speakers who feel they are being discriminated against by non _____ speakers with regards to employment as well.
Posted by: Brendan | Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Under the US Constitution, education, the police, and contracts are state matter. New York is free to decide the language of instruction, as is California.
Now, it is clear that such a marriage would increase the prominence of Spanish in the northern 50 states, and English in the southern 31 states. In the long term this will harm the Spanish language, as minority languages do not fair well in economies (think of Occitan, Provencal, Basque, or Breton in France). But while the fall of Spanish will be gradual over generations, the rise of English through in the southern 31 would be rapid. English is the language of opportunity, in business, in politics, any field.
Your mention of lawsuits is important, because it reminds us again of the terrible harm done to our Union by the Warren Court. So many of that era's reforms were based on taking rights from the States and giving them to Washington, as if the our Federal Republic would never again try to attract new states!
That said, a merger of our unions would be a boon to states rights. The intellectual and judicial tyranny of the bi-coastal elite who held so much influence for so long would be untenable in a world where Mexican states join Dixie states and Midwestern states as natural enemy of a centralized government.
Support freedom. Support state's rights. Support the Unification of North America under the Constitution.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Wednesday, March 29, 2006
A well said argument; I am fully in support of a better North American Union. Why don't we throw Canada in there as well? What's interesting about this is while the politics and economics are impossible -- the US absorbing Mexico would be as much of a mistake as the German experience; and Mexico, for good reason is very tender about it's national existence, on a personal level we are moving into one culture. When we speak Spanish, we sound like Mexicans. For a long time I thought it was the passing experience of taco stands and univision; but as my spanish girlfriend puts it, it's because the Mexicans already have an American accent in their Spanish. In 100 years we might be able to see the shared culture: cowboys, BBQ, line-dancing, cowboy songs, spurs, guns. But let's also remember the United States of Mexico are also far more diverse than the US - not through immigration but with many native cultures and languages (61?).
Posted by: Charlie | Wednesday, March 29, 2006
I have always said, if the United States wishes to become the first empire not to fall, they would have to make everyone around the entire planet American. The Romans did the same thing in order to build their empire. They fell, because they no longer accepted others as Roman due to problems in communications facilliation for defence. Even Alexander knew to have an Empire last, one had to make one culture for the peoples of an empire to intermigle with. Of course he was killed for it.
The problem, is that Americans do not want to cut other people political power. But if the US is to remain #1 in the world, they will have to make everyone American.
If not, they WILL fall, and some other nation will become #1. This is the price of nationalism.
Posted by: Taylor | Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Indeed the second one is much more my style. :)
I don't at all see legal immigration on the same level as illegal immigration. The two aren't even comparable. The taxes that I pay should go towards benefiting other taxpayers (legal immigrants) and such.
Posted by: Shay | Thursday, March 30, 2006
I agree that civilly illegal immigrants are different from civilly legal immigrants -- though it's important to note that neither are criminally illegal.
That said, public education is an investment in a more productive work force. Out of self-interest, the state educates children because that will create a wealthier state. Education is not a form of welfare.
Further, roughly half of Americans do not pay "taxes" (if by taxes on means the income tax) -- however, those same people pay social security and sales taxes, and also realty taxes indirectly through higher rents. So do illegal immigrants, except because they use phony social security numbers, they never cash in on old-age welfare like Americans and legal workers do.
That said, illegal immigration is not a good thing. That's why I advocate absorbing the 31 Mexican states into our Union.
The Roman grant of citizenship is generally overstated. The Romans may have made imperial subjects "citizens," but I don't think they extended this same honor to the Federal forces (the federali). As the economic core of Rome extended beyond the Empire into the Federation (just as it once extended beyond the Republic into the League), it kept the two-tier system.
Also, nationalism is not imperialism. Indeed, they are generally opposites. Think of the Little Englanders, opposing Victorian expansionism.  They recognized the harm a British Empire would do to the British nation. (They did not want to join what Niall Ferguson would later call the Anglo-Indian Empire). But likewise, nationalists oppose regional governments (hence Margaret Thatcher opposing Scottish self-rule).
Famous American nationalists are Pat Buchanan (opposing foreign entanglements) and Earl Warren (opposing local control).
I wouldn't be opposed to the membership of Canadian provinces, but such a union would be less appetizing. Provinces like Alberta and British Columbia might do best as independent states, and Quebec's xenophobia may drive them to the same conclusion.
Even apart from the politics, the MUS and USA are a match made in heaven. Mexico is rich in labor and America is rich in capital. The economic expansion that would come from truly free interaction between these unions far exceeds any gain a USA-Canada union could give.
The German experience is an argument against socialism, not freedom. After reunification, the Western government immediately saddled the east with bizarre and burdensome regulations. They prevented the east Germans from competing on price, condemning the east to economic atrophy and the west to supporting their twice-abused brothers.
A better example would be the entry of the 10 eastern European states into the EU. They compete on price, and grow strongly. Free-trade British and Ireland use this capital, and grow strongly. The socialists in the middle (France & Germany)... enjoy the fate of socialists of all parties.
Interesting comment on accents!
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, March 30, 2006
>The Roman grant of citizenship is generally overstated. The Romans may have made imperial subjects "citizens," but I don't think they extended this same honor to the Federal forces (the federali). As the economic core of Rome extended beyond the Empire into the Federation (just as it once extended beyond the Republic into the League), it kept the two-tier system.<
Well then, this is something that America should consider to do.
>Also, nationalism is not imperialism. Indeed, they are generally opposites. Think of the Little Englanders, opposing Victorian expansionism.  They recognized the harm a British Empire would do to the British nation. (They did not want to join what Niall Ferguson would later call the Anglo-Indian Empire). But likewise, nationalists oppose regional governments (hence Margaret Thatcher opposing Scottish self-rule).<
Such is the limits of language. What I ment, was that nationalism creates barriers to imperialism. For the United States to be number one, it will have to make everyone else American. This is due to American chauvanism. It is easier to control others if they are like you, than if they are unlike you. Its more of a police action than against peoples.
But I think the USA likes the way it is, and this will be its undoing. Unless of course it, itself is the change to the world international scene.
Posted by: Taylor | Thursday, March 30, 2006
America has a multi-tiered standard now, with citizens, perminent residents, temporary workers, etc.
I do not understand your claim that "the United States to be number one, it will have to make everyone else American [because of] American chauvanism."
I do agree that if America wants to keep the world unchanged, that would be harmful. Embracing a changing world is helpful.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, March 30, 2006
>I do not understand your claim that "the United States to be number one, it will have to make everyone else American [because of] American chauvanism." <
Because paradoxically, to the USA and especially its citizens, there is no other way to govern except the American way, because it is the best, it is number one, it won World War 1 & 2 and the Cold War, it was the first to the moon, etc. This also means no multiculturalism, no socialism, etc, only unbridled free market capitalism. (in theory anyway.)
See, when I am in the United States, I find that Americans think only about the United States and they cannot help it. For Americans, the planet is the United States. The United States is number one in most Americans eyes. This is its chauvanism. This is its strength and weakness. I don't have a problem with it, I just like calling a spade a spade. As the USA decided to take a much less isolationist policy after WW2, to step down from this mantle is inconceivable. The next step should then be global American citizenship or a fall from number 1.
So with the American chauvanism of their way being the best, to control the planet they would have to make everyone American. Its ideals of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" can be transposed around the planet. If not, it is much harder to control others in the long term if they are not like you, because others will change faster and remain untied.
If an empire is too much of a success without sharing it, it leads to mandarization and stagnancy. The impetus and inertia folds into itself due to hubris.
Mark my words, history bornes out that all empires fall from their top position. The USA to not fall, will have to make everyone the same as them. Or others will make the USA change.
The problem, is that the USA will not cut political power to others. The USA is weaned on the divide and conquer techniques of the English (and others), but this will only go so far. But unless it makes everyone American equally around the planet, unless it changes and includes everyone with their mantra, it will fall as number one.
If an Empire embraces others as themselves, then with heterogeneity comes the strength to adapt to changes. On the other hand, with blind obedience to control others, comes the paradox of having no control over oneself.
An example, would be if the British Empire had made a commonwealth with the American colonies. But of course this was inconceivable to Englishmen. The result was loss of that territory. The slowness of communications hampered this possiblity along with arrogance. But due to vast increases to technology, having one Empire today is only slowed down by internal inertial hierarchies.
One strength that the Americans have, is that English is worldwide language. Language is very important in cultural integration for others to relate to each other.
What other way is there for the Americans to feel safe and in control while not being number 1 ?
Posted by: Taylor | Thursday, March 30, 2006
Your view is generally accurate for security relationships. America is very hostile to losing security preeminence (think of the concerns of "near peer competitors," the shouting down of Howard Dean when he said "America won't always have the strongest military, etc."). However, the same doesn't hold true for economic relationships. America is anxious to cede power in these organizations, whether in the global World Trade Organization or regional clubs such as NAFTA and CAFTA.
In security America likes divide and conquer -- think of opposing the European Rapid Reaction force (to prevent a true European security force), vagueness on Taiwan (keeping Taipei dependent on us), and things like that. But in economics America prefers multilateral, technical adjudication.
This is different from historical Britain (with her system of imperial preferences). This isn't chauvinism. It's globalization, American style.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Friday, March 31, 2006
>This is different from historical Britain (with her system of imperial preferences). This isn't chauvinism. It's globalization, American style.<
Before I begin Dan, let me say that you don't me, I don't know you and ever the twain will meet. So far, we are only text to each other. But again let me reiterate that I have alot to learn from you. I have a tremendous amount of respect for your teachings and insights from what I have gathered from your blog. I want you to understand that I am being trained in your cognitive abilities.
But please also remember that I can always be wrong as I am always only one man, with a limited amount of information before me, given to me by others. As I pontificate, there is always the spectre of foolishness, of being a puppet.
I have been working hard in the "Ender Game" analogy/metaphor transpotence between your understanding and mine. To gain a greater threshold in breaking the mediocrity of the language of commonality.
Your reference to "globalization" ;american style; is indeed a subtle approach, in terms of artistry I tip my cap. I would add an Israeli factor into the flux.
In arguement, the best Question always trumps the best Answer. Its the Question that feeds. Who can ask the best Question ?
My rhetoric falls under ambiguity/paradox/enigma. These are the keys/notes for control of the planet. For humans are always such an inqusitive animal.
Now, what does this have to do with America drawing in others ?
How does one induce other nations/peoples to become one with your own ?
Through osmosis of need that is already plentiful via scarcity.
Thoughts anyone ?
Posted by: Taylor | Friday, March 31, 2006
Evidently, Dan, you're apparently a member of the "Young America Faction"...
Posted by: Jayson | Friday, March 31, 2006
Expand the Union yes, expand slavery no. :-)
Thank you for your kind words, and thank you a lot for your comments. tdaxp is nothing without the network of people around it. I appreciate your words and your time.
Through NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO, America is optimizing for what she likes: economic connectivity and sovereignty. Unlike the heavily centralized EU, America prefers organizations that stick to the economics and leaves the social policies to local constituents.
So as long as America has the strongest Leviathan force, America will be happy to "become one with" others through such multilateral economic institutions.
For security, America unites through exporting security. For economics, America unites through the material attractiveness of global capitalism.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Saturday, April 01, 2006
Isn't reconquista the same as Zionism?
Posted by: Isrealcool | Saturday, April 01, 2006
....that is not equal.
But the social is to the economic as 3 to 1, unless the social is bought off by the economic.
But it is not an equal flow. I'm talking about equality.
However, we'll see how far the US can pass this off as equitable. If it can, it will work. If not, then America will drop from # 1.
The question is, can an idea fool all the people all of the time ?
Posted by: Taylor | Sunday, April 02, 2006
Zionism is the belief in a Jewish nation-state, while la reconquista was the five-hundred year struggle to liberate Catholic Spain from her Moorish oppressors (alternative, its delusional by chicano nationalists with no resonance outside their coffee houses). I neither case is it a relevent analogy.
I'm not sure what you mean by the social is to economic ratio. While the American government believes in an essentially unipolar security world, and a multilateral economic world, it prefers a largely nongovernmental cultural world. So I apologize for not understanding your comment.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, April 02, 2006
I can definitely see some logic to this plan. If integration between Mexico and America is happening anyways, why not embrace it and veer it toward an outcome that Americans like me can be ok with?
What is being proposed here is USA version 3. USA version 1 was Colonial era through Civil War (USA as nation-state confederation). USA v2 was Reconstruction through the present (USA as strong federal Nation-State). USA v3 could be: USAv2 + Mexico as a Market-State.
My concerns with it revolve around maintaining the nature of the current American Identity (I am an American chauvinist) and corruption / immaturity / incompatibility of Mexican institutions and rules-sets (time for an inter-american SysAdmin force and an application of domestic PNM theory), and lastly the Reconquista / Mexica / Aztlan mindset (USAv3 as 5GW effort by the Mexica/Aztlan movements).
Here is my post (trackbacks don't seem to be working for one of us):
Posted by: purpleslog | Monday, April 03, 2006
The Civil War analogy is a good one, because with the destruction of the Union's old balance of power, nationalists were able to take over the country. But in the same way that German nationalism was really Prussiaism, and Italian nationalism was really Savoyism, American nationalism was really North-Eastism.
Adding the Mexican united States to the American united States would help correct this mistake. Hmmm.... seems dialectical (US 3.0 as synthesis between US 1.0 and US 2.0??)
While basic rulesets will need to be harmonized, a lot of other stuff is simply up to free people. Barnett said of gay marriage, in our multinational Union Massachusetts can do whatever they want. Ditto for many institutions in an expanded Union.
As for as La Raza... they really are extremists cooks. I am much more afraid of generic "multiculturalists" than them. But if one were afraid, think of Barnett's talk of "racing" against al Qaeda in the Middle East... If La Raza was an enemy worth fearing, shouldn't we race them to create our version of a unified North America?
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Tuesday, April 04, 2006
George Friedman of Stratfor has penned an article on Mexican immigration and geopolitics.  From my perspective, it strongly implies a an Union is in North America's best interests.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Tuesday, April 04, 2006
"I'm not sure what you mean by the social is to economic ratio. While the American government believes in an essentially unipolar security world, and a multilateral economic world, it prefers a largely nongovernmental cultural world. So I apologize for not understanding your comment"
Dan, you could say that I am now going to apply realpolitik.
The reasoning behind the United States not granting worldwide citizenship, is for the elites in the US to control their own masses. Nationalism is in itself a divide and conquer technique that is transposed onto a nations people.
The 3 to 1 assertion is a rip off of Napoleans dictum of "the moral is to the physical as 3 to 1". If people in other nations have only economic ties to the United States, this is not enough to control them. The best way to control others it to make them into yourself completely. Economics is only one aspect for global supremacy.
Also, "globalization" is a one way street. It is not an equal flow. The litmus test is whether, if you lived in one of the countries do you think that "globalization" is fair ? Of course not, the whole point is for western countries to benefit moreso than "3rd world" countries.
Let me reiterate, I am not against "globalization" per se. I am against hypocrisy and not calling a spade a spade. I just do not think that "globalization" will allow the United States to remain number 1.
Dan, if the US is idealistic enough to believe in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and the world economy revolves around this, then why can't the Americans share this equally ?
Why can't the United States practice what it preaches and forgo being a victim ?
Posted by: Taylor | Sunday, April 09, 2006
I'm going to zero in on the term "realpolitik," because I think it shows where our views are similar and where they are different.
Realpolitik, or Realism, believes that States eternally jostle for one thing: Power. In Realism, power is the be-all, end-all for states. A Realism would accept any other losses - including blood and treasure -- to secure power over another state.
In international relations, there are a number of alternatives to Realism. Commercial Liberalism -- with its nephew Rational Choice Theory -- argue that states are interested in Wealth, and will give up Power when it increases Wealth. (For example, the US effectively giving up some sovereignty to NAFTA and the WTO in exchange for more economic growth.) Constructivism  -- with its cousin Interpretivism  -- look at international relations as a form of applied educational psychology, believing that ultimately states might be taught almost anything
My point here is that when you mention that "'globalization' is a one way street. It is not an equal flow" you do appear to talk like a Realist. You see that Globalization enables the United States to have Power over every other State. That is largely true.
Commercially it is not true, however. Globalization has lifted more people, and States, out of poverty than any other process in the history of the world. Likewise, is it not true culturally.
This is shown by your comment that you do not think that "'globalization' will allow the United States to remain number 1." Globalization lifting out of poverty of India and China will give the United States her first "near peers" since the Soviet Union. The rise of those countries is only because of globalization -- only by accepting America hegemony for a while can they build up Power.
However, when you say "if the US is idealistic enough to believe in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and the world economy revolves around this, then why can't the Americans share this equally" you shift from a Realist perspective to an Idealist one. That's fine, but it's important to see that you are no longer speaking from Realism.
As far as life, liberty, and property rights, America is doing a fantastic job of exporting all three. Globalization has allowed more people to enjoy these than ever before in history.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, April 09, 2006
>I'm going to zero in on the term "realpolitik," because I think it shows where our views are similar and where they are different. Realpolitik, or Realism, believes that States eternally jostle for one thing: Power. In Realism, power is the be-all, end-all for states. A Realism would accept any other losses - including blood and treasure -- to secure power over another state.
Realpolitk is not the same as Realism, though they both have similarities. When I said I was "going to apply realpolitk" I was applying the way it describes things beyond a subjective view that the US is following as policy. The interesting thing about the US is that it incorporates both idealism and realpolitik, so it is hard to categorize cleanly.
>My point here is that when you mention that "'globalization' is a one way street. It is not an equal flow" you do appear to talk like a Realist. You see that Globalization enables the United States to have Power over every other State. That is largely true.
Here we are in agreement, but it is tempered with the paradox that is America. They believe they are the keepers of democracy so this taints all their actions.
>Commercially it is not true, however. Globalization has lifted more people, and States, out of poverty than any other process in the history of the world.
This is a half-truth. This ignores many instances where American monopolies did not allow an idigenous country to thrive unless it came into line with American corporations. If you wish, I can bring in many examples. There is also American monpolization of the world wide movie industry as a whole.
>This is shown by your comment that you do not think that "'globalization' will allow the United States to remain number 1." Globalization lifting out of poverty of India and China will give the United States her first "near peers" since the Soviet Union. The rise of those countries is only because of globalization -- only by accepting America hegemony for a while can they build up Power.
This ignores "Dollar Hegemony" that the US has foisted upon the world. So there is no free lunch for China or India. America is not so stupid to just give it away. The trade surplus is there for a reason. It is better to owe the bank $ 50 Million than $ 1. The United States is still the house.
>However, when you say "if the US is idealistic enough to believe in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and the world economy revolves around this, then why can't the Americans share this equally" you shift from a Realist perspective to an Idealist one. That's fine, but it's important to see that you are no longer speaking from Realism.
Again, realpolitik is not realism. The shift is because American realpolitik incorporates the idealistic in their own eyes and minds. This is the American trick and a quite excellent one I might add. American realpolitik contains the idealistic, for this is what motivates both.
>As far as life, liberty, and property rights, America is doing a fantastic job of exporting all three. Globalization has allowed more people to enjoy these than ever before in history.
This is again a half-truth and if you wish I can and will bring many examples to show the contrary nature of the US requiring other nations to be under their yoke and being "free", at a price.
What I find interesting about Americans, is that they cannot seperate a "democracy" and being "free" with having money. The US is a representational plutocracy. One cannot have a voice without money. But for Americans, they cannot seperate the two at all and indeed think I am a communist for making a distinction between the two.
Nationalism is a divide a conquer technique to control people around the planet. I am surpised you do not see this.
I am very surprised however at your response in regards to making everyone American, especially because you favour the "annexation" of Mexico. This indeed should be extended to the whole planet.
Again Dan, I am not attacking the US or its citizens. I have been to there many times and have always been treated very well. In fact I support it main tenets compared to any other country. But let's call things as they are, root out hypocrisy and identify the weaknesses of that is considered sacred. The US is a dangerous paradox, and for our planets well being its tenats will have to be applied globally and equally or there will be hell to pay for everyone.
Posted by: Taylor | Friday, April 14, 2006
You are right that the American belief that America build a future worth creating for everyone makes analysis of American actions complicated. Like any state she has to worry about maintaining her security, but she also exports security, economic liberalism, and even democracy to other stats as well. (The failure of international relations to examine this as a primary driver of international actions greatly harms the discipline, in my opinion.)
I think your discussion of "American monopolization of the world wide movie industry" is on the wrong level of analysis, for practical effects. While competition and diversity are important in creativity, so is geographical location.  Geographical concentration of some creative enterprise is not just a regretable fact, but a welcome one. Imagine Italian Renaissance creativity without the central location of Florence, for instance. (Of course, there are some competing mini-nuclei for sub-specialites: Bollywood, etc.)
Nixon ended true "Dollar Hegemony" by closing the gold window. Since then the security of the American dollar has been a function not of some purposeful international arrangement, but the incredible strength and stability of the American economy. Indeed, American administrations often attempt to weaken the dollar because of the cost of this effect to certain politically influential groups.
When you talk of America making nations not-free, you seem to be switching from an individual level of analysis to a state level of analysis. Generally, those that want nations to be "free" from America are arguing for an international anarchy that would allow those "free" states to opress their subjects (in the same way that Congo Free State was "free").
Your claim that America is a representative plutocracy is off. America is a federal republic. Now of course money matters, as it would in any political system. America's government is not designed to create a pure democracy or even the best of all possible social orders. Instead, it is to promote the general welfare while preventing centralized tyranny.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Friday, July 07, 2006