During the recent celebrations of Tip O’Neill’s centenary, the late House speaker’s famous maxim was much repeated: All politics is local. In his day, O’Neill had wisely countered the elected big shot’s temptation to replace neighborhood concerns with national issues. But is O’Neill still right? What happens when the affairs even of a nation come to seem smaller, against an incipient commonwealth of the planet? We are crossing into a realm where the deepest meaning of civic connection is no longer defined by national citizenship. The dawning of this new year suggests the coming of a new maxim: All politics is global.
For most of a century, idealistic visions of international order have periodically seized the imagination — going back to the League of Nations after World War I. The League failed, and subsequent structures of transnational governance have met resistance. The United Nations has kept its footing, but barely. It remains contested even within the United States, its main sponsor; last month, fearing an infringement of sovereignty, Congressional Republicans successfully defeated a UN treaty protecting the rights of the disabled, despite its American provenance — and the advocacy of Republican icon Bob Dole. The transnational European Union was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this past fall, but economic stresses have revived regional resentments of the kind that often sparked war.
Comments
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
This comment has been removed.
Much like Japan before it, South Korea is the latest 'Asian tiger' that derives its strength from successfully channelling the energy of 50 million humans crammed into a land mass the size of Maine (which has 1 million people). The best way to describe this is civilized brutality, at least in terms of the human condition. There wouldn't be many Americans that would consider the life of an even better off Korean as enviable, not to mention the millions that live the lives of machine-like slaves (think company towns like Samsung, with its barrack-like living quarters and long assembly-line hours, but much worse). Just imagine Maine having 50 million people and you'll get a better idea of what it's like to live in South Korea. With these kinds of juxtapositions, not through Carroll's 'idealistic vision', will we better understand the global village we live in.
Thought provoking piece, James. One objection: minority rights, as previously understood, are obsolete. The individual is the new minority.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
All politicans dream of becoming Globial connected men. Globial rule is the ultimate lust for power and contral over the populus by a few rich dictators for money and wordly goods and fame. The cost is your individual freedom and poverty.A starving unarmed people are ease to control by those in power. Think before you swollow this Liberal Progressive dream.
This comment has been removed.
All the while one of the world's oldest and most vile forms of prejudice, Anti-Semitism, is on the rise. Has our world changed so much from a year or so ago when only 32 of the 193 Member Countries of the UN General Assembly walked out of Iran's Ahmadinejah's Anti-Semetic rant before the UN General Assembly. Unfortunately, the history of the human race has shown that while human beings can be wise and strong and kind, they can also be vindictive and cruel. I like Mr. Carroll hope that all this great new technology will help spread truth and human decency,not fear,lies and human wickedness. Based on the available evidence it's still only a hope as I it see it today, but I'll continue to hope, despite all the nastiness.
This comment has been removed.
While I agree "Kitch" anti-semitism has always been a bane on civilization. But then your specific anti-Islamism isn't much better. Oh wait their semites too. Hmm. Makes for an interesting philosophical thought. But then it would be much easier if one merely opposed religious institutions on philosophical grounds and moved away from opposing only certain groups. Oh well one man's prejudice is another mans rightful thinking I suppose.