What Raindrops Tell us About the Emergent World Order

President H.W. Bush, borrowing a phrase from an earlier era, popularized the term “New World Order” (NWO) in the early 1990s. But while the New World Order has legitimate roots, it has come to be associated with little more than paranoid conspiracy.

Given what we’ve witnessed in recent times, however, is it wise to continue to dismiss the notion out-of-hand?

The following metaphor, Friedmanesque but nevertheless useful in view of the controversial nature of this topic, paints a picture of what political and economic progress may look like as the 21st Century progresses — and why a NWO may not be as far-fetched as so many of us are inclined to believe.

Imagine a smattering of raindrops hitting the pavement. Each raindrop represents the relative isolation and sovereignty of each nation. As those raindrops increase in number — meaning more countries climb aboard the international trade bandwagon — they connect like dots.

With enough rain — overlapping treaties and trade agreements — pools of water form (commonwealths operating under a shared constitution and/or currency). This is a natural evolution of the free trade process.

The European Union is but one such trade and currency pool, and it is not at all out of the question that more are to come. In Asia, in fact, The Wall Street Journal reported October 12, 2009 that an “Asean Plus Six” proposal seeks to integrate the 10 member nations of the Association of Southeast Asian nations as well as Japan, China, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand.

Much like a succession of raindrops merging to form large swaths of water, boundaries between nations may become less distinct in the years to come. Such a progression inevitably begs the question: Is national sovereignty passé? And in even longer-range terms, will ethnic, language and cultural distinctions begin to dissolve too?

While far-sighted, these questions are just that: Legitimate questions.

When people say that the prospect for a North American Union is little more than a conspiracy, they are, in effect, saying that they know the future beyond a reasonable doubt. What this denies in the here-and-now is an appreciation for the reality that a World Federalist Movement (WFM) has been afoot for decades. The mainstream media may not give these long-ranging issues press time, but world federalist organizations do, in fact, exist in the United States, Canada and elsewhere in the developed world — and they run websites replete with historical timelines that anyone can verify for themselves.

Our Mission is to promote global governance to address inequality, violent conflict, mass atrocities, climate change and corruption

World Federalist Movement and Institute for Global Policy: https://www.wfm-igp.org/

This much we know of modern times: Peacetime economies are evolving toward tighter integration for the sake of shared prosperity. Debates over whether this is incidental or intentional detract from the point: The logical extension of removing conflicting trade laws and legal barriers may well be a set of conditions wherein borders are intact on maps, but members function more like states in a global confederation (interregionalism).

Some say we may even see this convergence culminate within our lifetimes.

In a speech then-president-elect Barack Obama gave in Berlin, he had this to say:

No doubt there will be differences in opinon. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together.

A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden.

In this new century Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more, not less.

Partnership and cooperation between nations is not a choice. It is the only way. The one way to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.

President Obama’s message? This isn’t personal. This isn’t partisan. This “burden” is the future. And no, we do not have a choice.

President Obama, to be clear, is but one of several American presidents in recent years to share a globalized vision — hence his statement that a “change in Washington” will not deviate world leaders from a transnational progressive path:

SERIOUS QUESTIONS FOR SERIOUS TIMES

  • Does a shift toward increasingly large and impersonal centralized governance bode well for freedom to exclude oneself or one’s nation from a one-size-fits-all policy? Or will freedom to opt out be the one guarantee regional integration proponents — world federalists — can’t promise?
  • Is it in keeping with human history and human psychology to share a collective vision without breaking rank? How does world federalism propose to respond to “agitators” and civil unrest within its Utopian framework?
  • Does consolidation of legal and political powers represent a net gain or is it offset by the potential for corruption and abuse at the hands of a powerful few whose legislative reach has gone global?
  • At an economic level, can or will world federalism deliver on its promise of peace and prosperity for all world citizens? Or does it violate the all-eggs-in-one-basket principle: posing, instead, a dangerous level of economic and international codependency that will hold individuals and markets alike captive to the weakest link within the whole?

How do you feel about the path we are apparently headed down?

###

Straight Talk to Conservatives: What it Will Take in 2012

The 2008 presidential election offered an opportunity to nominate a candidate who offered a proven mix of conservative and libertarian principles. This individual had 30-some years of experience and unprecedented grassroots support. Although he was the only candidate to counterbalance Barack Obama’s cult-like following with generous numbers of his own homegrown supporters, he never had a shot at the Republican party nomination. He was just too radical for our postmodern times in which questioning the economic sustainability of policing the world and the necessity of Big Government agencies has become taboo.

It is more than ironic how the most “liberal Democrat” in the Senate and an alleged socialist was nominated for the Democratic party and ultimately elected to the presidency, while the candidate who most sharply counterbalanced Obama’s liberalism wasn’t deemed fit for the Republican ticket. This election year, Republicans were seemingly fearful of foregoing a supposedly moderate candidate (Sen. McCain) in favor of nominating an extreme candidate (Rep. Ron Paul). Yet that very act on the flip side of the ticket — pandering to extremes — didn’t seem to hurt the Democrats.

Sen. McCain’s attempt to distance himself from the religious conservative “base” in effect hung those supporters out to dry, a less-than-conciliatory decision that only ceded territory to President-elect Obama. Having said that, however, it would be remiss not to lay some of the responsibility at the feet of religious conservatives: They had their pick of not one but two experienced candidates with a staunchly pro-life position, among other issues, yet aided and abetted by FOX News & Friends sent Rep. Ron Paul and Gov. Mike Huckabee packing.

For all this seemingly partisan commentary, the lion’s share of blame for the loss of the 2008 presidential election belongs at the feet of those who, without compunction, perpetuate the notion that only Republicans care if the nation is attacked by terrorists (or any other ill for that matter). Crackpots like these were present at McCain’s rallies, publicized in the media and ultimately responsible for infusing the McCain campaign not only with a negative tone but a paranoid one. This is the type of PR that no campaign strategist needs or wants, yet Sarah Palin, in particular, attracted the fear and hate-mongers like flies. Toward the end, McCain campaign staffers privately assailed Palin as a “diva”, a loose cannon. In all likelihood, however, Palin made an easy scapegoat for McCain staffers frustrated by the off balance elements who consistently reared their hostile heads at rallies.

Republicans cannot save face until they admit that the Bush Administration has given conservatism a bad rap. President Bush, given not one but two terms and the hindsight of the horrors of 911, failed just as miserably to take out Osama bin Laden as President Clinton. The Bush Administration’s support of surveillance state technologies has violated the Fourth Amendment vis-à-vis former Attorney General John Ashcroft and his even more irreverent replacement, Alberto Gonzales. The Bush Administration yanked our chains after 911, compelling a great deal of the American public to perceive a link between Iraq and 911 that didn’t exist, bungled intelligence that by the 2004 election had already come to light. Yet playing upon our post-911 fear to revive his father’s war — removing Saddam Hussein from power, an otherwise admirable aim but for its poor timing and convenient sales pitch — failed to cost President Bush a second term in office. In no small part that is because many of his hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil supporters refused to call a spade a spade.

Loyalty to a wartime president is one thing, deeming the Bush Administration infallible, another entirely. That President Bush’s tenor in the White House lived to see another term during which the economy has collapsed and his reputation has further suffered can be attributed to those who refused to read the writing on the wall. The Bush Administration could have been given a graceful exit in 2004, which may have made the “fall guy” for the ensuing four years a single-term Democrat (Sen. John Kerry). Instead, the reelection of President Bush paved the way for Obama, who like President Clinton, may occupy the Oval Office for a long, long time.

Make no mistake, however: The sins of the GOP are by no means relegated to the Bush Administration. For over 25 years Republican leadership has practiced Big Government even as they win elections claiming to represent the opposite. In view of these many contradictions, the irony that so many conservatives harp on fears of a liberal takeover is nothing less than dumbfounding. The nation witnessed the Clinton Administration reform welfare so that it can no longer serve as a permanent crutch, and the Clinton Administration exited office with the first budget surplus in decades. How can anyone in their right mind make a Democrats-are-capable-of-no-good argument with a straight face? Are we still living in 1993? No one will argue that the Clinton years were idyllic. But one thing President Clinton didn’t do is commit presumed liberal sins: tax us into oblivion and run the nation into record deficits. We have President Reagan, H. W. Bush and G. W. Bush to thank for those.

For Republicans to come out ahead in the next presidential election, a period of deep introspection is in order. The actions of Republican leaders have been a part of the problem. Liberals have been perennial favorites in the conservative media shooting gallery for so long that conservatives risk appearing off balance for never so much as aiming a token shot at the bad actors within their own party. Confessing the sins within the Republican ranks would go a long way toward restoring conservative moral and intellectual credibility. It might even win back the respect — and the votes — of those who became disenfranchised enough to “go Blue”.

Only time will tell if GOP leaders and their supporters have the courage to clean house. If conservatives don’t want President-elect Obama or like Democrat to trump the GOP again in 2012, they need to cut out the arrogance and don some humility. The same goes for the poor sports making doom-and-gloom predictions on talk radio and television, forwarding baseless political email rumors to the discredit of their own intelligence, and posting off-kilter comments on news items and blogs. It is all well and good for Republicans to express disappointment over the election outcome, concern even. In fact, given all the problems the President-elect faces, it would be irrational not to feel some degree of trepidation about the future. Voicing over-the-top paranoia, on the other hand, is just plain self destructive.

Bottom line? Republicans need to step out of their own way. If conservatives aren’t too proud to do so, they just might find cause for celebration in 2012.

###