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.

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 ?

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. [1] 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.

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.

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 ?

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.

Taylor,

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. [1] 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).

Charlie,

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!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Englander
[2] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465023290?v=glance

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.

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.