Mac-Coleman

9 December 2011 –

Bumper Sticker of The Day – Social Security: The Ultimate Ponzi Scheme

Yesterday, a dear friend of mine referred to my blog entries about sovereignty. Her opinion is always to be carefully considered, therefore, I start today with a few sentences from her e-mail.

“Your thoughts on sovereignty were particularly relevant as was the questioning of

traditional means by which we recognize sovereignty. Though I have no answers,

I can't help but wonder what might be possible if we simply abandon Western imposed

and conceived border constructs for certain segments of the world and create altogether

new approaches. There are always winners and losers when it comes to people, land,

and authority, so such an action would undoubtedly generate instability and violence. I

wonder if starting over would be worth the initial pain to get to a more sustainable peace.”

Hmm…I admire my friend’s backbone of idealism and principle. Concepts like “abandon[ing] Western imposed and conceived border constructs..,” and “starting over,” show that she contemplates what “could” and what “should” be in life. But, what makes her a trustworthy idealist is her steely pragmatism and ability to do everything that can be done when implementing lofty plans. If dominant western powers—or the collective ineptitude of the UN—gave her the strategic task to start over in places like Egypt, Libya, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or the Horn of Africa, I believe that her pragmatism most certainly would guide the operational phase. She certainly would not imitate President Wilson’s efforts to “make the world safe for democracy” after World War One when he arrogantly dictated from the outside what a liberated region’s borders should be. Such impositions are the spoils left to ruthless conquerors over the hapless conquered. In fact, such forced agreements inhibit the necessary sense of ownership, the expanded cohesion if you will, among the people in the region if they are to prosper.

Besides, history of the last two hundred years shows that once a sovereign border is declared, it is almost impossible to change—without the violence my friend referred to—because it serves so many purposes for so many people in and out of the region. In the worst case, borders add one more point that can local power mongers can pick at until it too becomes a painful sore on the body sovereign; instability, therefore, continues, and evil people continue to make money on the pain of others. In the best case, borders serve as a symbol that those on one side of the border now identify themselves more by where they live than by the skin color, language, or religion that may tie them to those across the line. An in-between case would be where a cohesive group of people, divided by the border, ignores the line, pays unto Caesar what Caesar demands on both sides of the check points, and still identifies itself by more fundamental cohesive factors (The U.S., in the case of its southern border, is somewhere between the in-between and the best cases).

Most borders in the “developing world” probably are going to stay as we western imperialists drew them in the sand with our riding crops. Nonetheless, most people in those regions are going to continue to identify themselves at least as much by other fundamental, cohesive factors such as language, race, culture, or religion, as they are by the name and benefits given to them by living on one side or the other of an international border.

What about in the European Union? Will identification with basic cohesive groups and the traditional countries that have more or less coalesced around those groups hold significant sway? Yes, especially now that the monetary crisis brought about by profligate government spending has ostensibly created a rich North and a dependent South Europe. What remains to be seen is if the sacrifice necessary to maintain the higher level of EU sovereignty among the Greek, Italian and Spanish Europeans will continue to be worth it to the German Europeans. It seems that higher orders of sovereignty work—until they don’t.

What about the United States? Specifically, is our grand experiment on this side of the pond sufficiently strong to maintain the aegis of sovereignty over a country that increasingly panhandles for the benefits that come with such concepts as diversity and and group rights. A useful exercise for Americans would be to list, in priority order, the titles and names they are most proud of and most loyal to. American? African American? Polish American (For you, Grandma)? Texan? Father? Mother? Baptist? Democrat? Moslem? Jazz Saxophonist? Rapper? Military Officer? Cowboy? Senator? Academic? National Education Association (union) Member? Well, do our titles allow us to embrace American sovereignty, exemplified by her borders and Constitution, as being in synch with the rest of who and what we are? It is a useful exercise to determine loyalties, cohesion and sovereignty. Would it be worth the effort—the violence or pain—to realign our priorities? To drop some titles? I do know that I would not be comfortable with the titles world citizen, fellow traveler, or Facebook follower.

More tomorrow.