John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY GUILLAUME DUROCHER IN THE UNZ REVIEW

 

“Towards Expat Nationalism

“Technological and Psychological Factors for the Rise and Decline of the Nation-State”

 

It is good to keep in mind that the nation-state as we know it has no long history.

It is largely a creation of the 19^th century. Many of the most familiar nations in Europe, for example, were created in that period – as Germany or Italy.

For most of history, we have had empires and kingdoms, large entities incorporating many kinds of people, such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Holy Roman Empire.

For a while, extreme nationalists demanded that a given nation-state was for people of a certain ethnic identity, speaking a certain language, maybe even having a certain look and religion. This perhaps reflected lingering attitudes and hostilities from having rebelled against an old declining multi-national imperial group.

That notion, taken to its extreme, assisted ultimately in the birth of monstrosities such as Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

For the most part, the advanced world has moved well beyond that narrow and dangerous concept.

Israel, of course, is one of the last in the advanced world we hear still talking that way, which is a source of concern for all liberal-minded people.

The United States right now is something of an exception. There are unquestionably fascist tones in America’s contemporary political rhetoric. It is really odd when you think about it, the country being based on immigration and having been a “melting pot.”

But it has long been an undercurrent in America. The Nazi Bund was a pretty large movement in America, for example. The great journalist and writer, William L. Shirer, said once that he thought America might be the first country to go fascist voluntarily. Of course, organizations like the Klu Klux Klan and various extreme militia groups have long histories. As do fraternal organizations whose membership requires being a descendant from some early group.

Just not that many years ago, a Spanish-speaking person did a translation of America’s national anthem, and a recording of it became popular. Instead of being proud about it, certain groups of Americans became furious. There were ugly words hurled around. Even a descendent of Francis Scott Key, the man who wrote the “poem” in 1814 that would provide the words of the anthem, got quite huffy about anyone daring to sing it in Spanish. Ironically, as few Americans realize, the music to the anthem came from an old English drinking song.

America is a big ship, and any big turns take a while to make. It is not only a big ship, but one whose controls are difficult to operate. It tends to do only ‘full steam ahead.”

America also has had a good streak of arrogance and self-importance since its heydays of the 1950s when it literally was king of the planet. Its assumption of what President Putin rightly calls “exceptionalism” does fit nicely with attitudes around extreme patriotism and xenophobia.

I think the conflict between Americans with fascist tones in their speech and others is not only just one more division in a country which has always been divided, in one way or another from its very beginning, but it reflects difference in ancestry of the population, as Northern Europeans versus Southern Europeans or Latins.

There can be no question that Trump represents those people. They make up a large part of his political base because he feeds them what they want to hear, often barely disguised hatreds and contempt for foreigners and for Americans who look different. Migrants of all kinds. Muslims. Hispanics. “Shithole countries” (his exact words) in general.

As far as talk of globalism goes, it is a very confused subject, the word almost taking on different meanings with different speakers.

Here are some fundamental realities that will determine the future of “globalism.”

The growth of international trade has been an immense benefit for many decades. The United States’ golden days of the postwar period were the result of it being a great supplier of goods to all corners of the earth. It was the only undamaged major nation, and it had invested hugely for war production.

As other nations recovered and changed and made brand new investments, the United States just naturally lost its special place. It also was encumbered by its own myths about itself. When its uniquely blessed period of opportunity in the world began to fade, those myths only dragged on its ability to adjust and re-invest and compete in a changing world. Americans at all levels of society really did believe they were the best at what they did.

I think Japan’s re-emergence was the first great shock to the American ego, but there have been others since, and the overwhelmingly big one has been the miraculous rise of China, something in fact, given China’s remarkable history, which should have been predictable. But you just don’t think clearly when you believe yourself indispensable to the world.

So, today, America is reduced to dishonest and dangerous tactics of every description to “re-claim” what it foolishly believes is its and its alone, the right to be number one in almost everything. Clearly, only a kind of religious or mystical belief could engender such an expectation.  Never mind about getting down to hard work and investing to be more competitive, investing in everything from better schools to national infrastructure. And better government, too. No, we’re Americans, we’re entitled.

Large trading blocs, like the EU and others, are powerful mechanisms for increased prosperity. They may have their temporary ups and downs, but they are not going away simply because the basic economic principles underlying them are real and powerful.

Advances in technology will only continue to make international trade easier and less costly, and they will do so at an increasing rate of change.

With growing international trade, there is a growing need for international organizations to support, protect, and govern with agreed rules. That, too, is not going away, despite the bellowing of people like Trump. Such organizations are suffering right now, but they will return with strength simply because they are genuinely needed.

Every bit of trade destroyed, as with Trump’s illegal sanctions and arbitrary tariffs and threats, makes the world a poorer place than it need be. That’s basic economic science. Those who argue with scientific principles are only howling and spitting against the wind. They will not be able to sustain their destructive effort for too long, and for that we should all be glad.

As far as population and migration go, every advanced country has arrived at a point where births minus deaths cannot sustain population. This is a naturally occurring phenomenon called demographic transition. From that point, only in-migration can sustain or increase population. With absolutely no in-migration, such a nation would actually see its population shrinking, and with no end to it.

The average number of live births a woman is expected to have over her reproductive life in any given society is called the fertility rate.

Advanced countries today have fertility rates on the order of 1.5 or so. Without in-migration, a fertility rate of 2.1 is required just to sustain a population, but you will not find that in any advanced nation. There are many reasons for that, including, importantly, young modern women pursuing rewarding careers.

So, in-migration must be a part of every healthy society in the future, and this necessarily means different kinds of people arriving on your shores.

That, too, is not something new. In the distant past, it took the form of mass migrations and conquests and was not driven by demographic change. In an old familiar society like Britain, one whose people have an image we all enjoy and assume to be enduring, we actually have a history of Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Norman French, and others creating the hybrid people we know.

Today, further change is underway in Britain as many people from former parts of the British Empire have established themselves there. And more migrants still will be needed since Britain’s fertility rate is too low to replace its population.

There’s just no avoiding the fact that in all traditional established states the future is going to look and sound different than what we have been used to.

John Chuckman

EXPANSION OF COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN

 

This is silly, but then everything written about Trump at The Guardian is silly, when it isn’t full of hate.

Your list, “Five more terrifying would-be presidents,” is almost beyond comprehension.

Please, just look at some of the current candidates. You simply could not find a more questionable group of people. It is a regular Madame Tussaud Chamber of Horrors.

Cruz is a scary right-wing religious wacko. There is a video of him on-line sitting at breakfast holding hands with his perfect little suburban family praying over the Sugar Pops. And if you are religious, isn’t prayer for your closet, not your campaign publicity? Staff working for Cruz include neo-cons and CIA-types, and his wife is associated with Goldman Sachs.  He is intellectually gifted, but many of his old associates say he is an extremely unpleasant man with which to work, extremely arrogant, and one not to be trusted, being given to treacherous turns. This man, who would have the nuclear code box at his disposal, is a believer in the Second Coming, and that is hardly reassuring. And, as he showed in Iowa, he is quite capable of truly underhanded behavior.

Then we have Carson, a narcissistic megalomaniac, and that’s apart from his genuinely bizarre beliefs about things like the Pyramids of Egypt. It is actually difficult to listen to him, his words are so strange at times. His house apparently is heavily decorated with pictures of himself. Again, a believer in the Second Coming. Also a man demonstrated as given to self-embellishing falsehoods.

Jeb Bush is insipid in appearance, and extremely dishonest in behavior. He was, after all, Governor of Florida when the 2000 election involving his brother was thrown into the Supreme Court over very questionable treatment of ballots. That election was essentially stolen, but Al Gore, who received the most votes by a good measure, didn’t have the heart to fight it. Jeb also made a lot of money out of companies doing business with Florida, very much in the fashion of your typical third-world leader. His campaign has recently been paying (yes, paying!) people off the street to attend his speaking events with their thin attendance. He even recently was caught moaning to his paid crowd that they could at least applaud.

Hillary Clinton has been caught in so many lies, you can’t keep track. Everything from the Benghazi fiasco to her former campaign fairy tale about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia where actual news film showed her being greeted warmly by a lovely little girl with flowers, proof which caused her to say she “misspoke.” Misspoke about being under sniper fire? Ridiculous. And ridiculous, too, is her long list of confrontations with former lovers of her husband, some saying they were threatened or some bribed with job offers to shut up. She has, however, no history of confrontation with billionaire and convicted pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, who lives on a private island where he keeps underage girls at his disposal and at the disposal of guests. Bill has visited the island many times, and Mr. Epstein has contributed handsomely to the Clinton Foundation. The hundreds of millions in that Foundation come from many questionable sources, from foreign powers looking to do business with the U.S. when she was Secretary of State to rich scoundrels looking for a Presidential pardon. The Foundation, not noted for any real charitable work, has served as a slush fund for political efforts and as a place for her daughter to work as an executive at an extravagant salary. Hillary’s whole record of behavior easily qualifies her as a contemporary American Borgia.

Perhaps most depressing of all, she always votes for war. Of course she supported her husband’s nasty little war in Serbia. And she had a front-row seat for destroying Libya. I just love her sick, psychopathic comment made with laughter at the time of Gadhafi’s assassination: “We came, we saw, he died.” Clinton is one of Israel’s favored candidates precisely because she is a relentless war-monger. Israel never wants America looking towards peace or decreased involvement in the world.

And that’s just part of the ugly crew running. Only Bernie Sanders stands out for integrity and traditional progressive beliefs, but he has the proverbial “snowball’s chance in hell” of winning. Imagine a brutal, world imperial power like America, engaged in almost non-stop warfare and interference in the affairs of others, electing a self-declared socialist? It is literally impossible.

Trump definitely has some unpleasant characteristics and views, but there is a part of him that is solid with something to offer. His views on America’s wars and stupid involvements in places like Syria are sound. Maybe in a place like America, you have to take some bad stuff to gain some good in at least one crucial area. He is very a successful businessman and an independent thinker, and those are both things Americans like.

I think compared to some of the alternatives, he is nothing quite like the hateful figure The Guardian keeps saying he is, and I suspect undeclared special interests in The Guardian’s treatment of him, likely having to do with its ongoing bias towards Israel, whose government we know dislikes Trump’s independent views.

 

 

 

 

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON SPUTNIK

 

What many readers in Russia undoubtedly do not understand is Washington’s election campaign finance rules and their relationship to special interest groups like the Israel lobby and the never-ending turmoil of Israel-Palestine.

There are basically – despite a complex web of rules – no limits on money given to candidates for election to office.

The Supreme Court, under the influence of decades of conservative appointments, has ruled that money is free speech.

Well, you could not come up with a more corrosive rule for democracy if you tried.

The best organized and financed special interest in the United States – the Israel lobby – is able essentially to buy the loyalty of most congressmen and senators and presidential candidates.

That sounds like exaggeration, but it absolutely is not.

Money is so important in Washington elections because you must travel extensively, buy television air-time, have professional commercials produced, commission endless polls and studies, and purchase the services of costly experts. It all precisely resembles the marketing and selling of a product by a great multi-national company rather than an exercise in democracy.

This is especially true of American presidential elections, which effectively stretch out over a year including primaries and caucuses.

A year of spending like a drunken sailor!

Imagine the vast costs?

That is the American presidential campaign system in a nut shell.

This system achieves several things. One, an entrenched, well-financed special interest can stay entrenched indefinitely. Two, all the serious candidates – those with hundreds of millions in their pockets from donors and the promise of more (the Hillary Clintons or Jeb Bushes) – are effectively vetted by their existing establishment donors. They are safe bets on key matters. Nothing can really change, including major policies. The system is built to achieve that result.

Then along comes an ambitious character like Donald Trump who can finance his own campaign, there being very few people who have or are willing to spend a billion dollars of their own on a campaign.

This is part of what makes the Israel lobby in the U.S. extremely suspicious of him. Then add the fact that he is very independent-minded and says America should get along with Russia and China and that it shouldn’t be in places like Syria, and a form of panic ensues.

I dislike most of Trumps’ views, but on the Middle East and some foreign policy he could represent important and overdue change. The Israel lobby understands that and already on many fronts is getting ready for one ugly fight. We see former New York Mayor, and billionaire, Bloomberg talk of running as an independent, The Weekly Standard, voice of Neo-cons and the Israel lobby is screaming about Trump, and some newspapers have already engaged in underhanded stuff like reporting that a distant relative of Anne Frank’s says “Trump sounds like Hitler.”

If Trump gets the nomination, there’s going to be a really dirty fight with the Middle East at its center, but Trump’s opponents will not openly make the Middle East the issue as it is much safer with the general public and easier to talk about Trump’s sometimes wild words and more extreme ideas. But the intensity of the fight will be about the Middle East.

It will be an interesting political year.