Excellent post. (0.00 / 0)

I wholeheartedly agree: states should be non-sectarian and citizenship should not be racialized (or based on religion, ethnicity, etc.) in any manner. 

Thanks for stepping back from the horse-race to offer a few thoughts about some basic, foundational issues of politics.  I only wish there were more places to have conversations like the one you have initiated here. 

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 15:03:32 PM CST

Wait. Is this ethnic - religious etc or is it economics? (0.00 / 0)

My inclination is to allow the breakup into more or less homogeneous units. Probably city-states. But then all those states bonded into democratic economic unions. A sort of both situation. More local and more global. The trick is the democracy part. Economics tends to be authoritarian almost by definition.

Jeff Wegerson - Prairie State Blue

---

by: wegerje @ Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 15:23:24 PM CST

Hard to imagine (4.00 / 1)

A small city state holding together a health care or social security system. That seems like a bad path to me.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 15:28:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Again it would depend upon (0.00 / 0)

the nature of the economic union. The more progressive the economic union then the more evening of the economic extremes caused by resource extraction on the one hand and manufacturing development on the other. Where such economic blessings do not exist then to those members of the economic union would go opportunities for wealth balancing, be they quasi-protectionist or subsidies.

So Quebec, for example, would be in a union where Alberta's oil wealth would be shared with them, by some means or other.

Anyway I was imaging large city states not small ones. Think Jane Jacobs.

But the point is that one the one hand there is devolution of government on the one hand with evolution of economic unions on the other. Don't get hung up in the exact sizes and natures of the many possible specific unique occurrences of the individual "states". NAFTA is a bad example and the EU is a better but still very infant example.

Jeff Wegerson - Prairie State Blue

---

by: wegerje @ Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 23:03:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Local understanding (0.00 / 0)

There are lots of reasons this kind of thing is happening.

In Europe there most people believe that ethnic and national identity are the same, largely because it is for the vast majority of the population.

In Belgium, there is very little nationalism.  It is one of the things I like about the country (along with the chocolate, the beer, and the food) but I somehow doubt that many people there will sacrifice for their national identity.

The division between Flanders and the French part is stark and significantly older than the country.  There will always be resentments inside a country between the North, the South, the East and the West.  Get large enough and there can be resentment between the middle and the edges.  When those frustrations are not address it leads to regionalization.  Devolution is happening in several other European nations including Great Britain.

I am confident that the Belgians of all people can resolve regional tensions without resort to violence and that is what is important.  This news did not surprise me in the least.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 09:40:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I Agree At First Blush (0.00 / 0)

That what matters most is non-violent resolution of tensions.  But the larger question is that of context.  Non-violent resolution in a context of genuine equality should lead to long-term stability, peace and justice.  But non-violent resolution in a context of inequality means years, perhaps generations of simmering resentments, and is only a deferral of violence in time.

So, while I applaud the direction of thinking you point to, I think it needs to be made more rigorous in order to avoid being coopted for ends quite different from what you intend, and what I would readily agree with.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 11:43:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm also a huge fan of localized government. (0.00 / 0)

I like that I can choose to live here in SF and enjoy the unique laws and policies of this city. I am sure many citizens of Utah, NYC and Montana (to name a few enclaves of extreme localism) feel the same way.

I sometimes think that Californian independence wouldn't be half bad (though we are talking about 37 million people, not exactly a city-state). The smaller the level of government, the more power each individual can possess. I have a feeling that, if left to our own devices, CA would start to look more like Western Europe than the American South. Then again, if Utah had its way it may look more like a Mideast theocracy than a modern democracy.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 16:24:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is why (0.00 / 0)

I dislike those advocates of a Democratic strategy of not even trying in the South.  In the long run, it seems like the goal is to turn the South into an irrelevant white evangelical ghetto which is treated sort of like how the Sunnis are treated by Shiites in Iraq.

Identity is fluid, which is why a Democratic coalition based on the identity politics of the '60s is flawed in the long-run.  There's little hope if we can't move beyond that.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 17:47:19 PM CST

But That's NOT What Tom Schaller Is Saying! (4.00 / 2)

Schaller isn't advocating that we not even try in the South.  He is advocating that we not build our strategy around it.  He is fine with Dean's infrastructure-building.  He is not fine with pandering to Bubba.  Big difference.

The point is, Bubba has no idea what's really in his own long-term self-interest.  And it's not Bubba's fault.  It's an inherent feature (not a bug) in the Southern political system.  And the only way forward is to undermine that system.

This is, BTW, one of the most compelling arguments I see for an Edwards candidacy, something that I see as totally compatible with Shaller's argument.  Edwards is white Southern male, but he's not pandering on the basis of his identity.  He lets his identity open the door, but what's inside is popluism, not Southern identity politics.  Again, big difference.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 11:51:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

I admit to not having actually read his book and going off of my impressions from his stint guest-blogging at TPMCafe and I am aware that he advocates the Democrats running white Southerners for the presidency.

In looking at coalition partners for progressives, I strongly favor dealing with economically populist/progressive, culturally conservative people rather than pro-corporate, socially liberal people a la the DLC.  I cringe at people creating terms such as "libertarian Democrat" or thinking that RonPaulistas are suitable long-term candidates for the Democratic coalition.

I dislike monoculture, so I am not as interested in turning competitive districts into solidly Democratic districts as I am in turning Republican and Republican-leaning districts into competitive districts.  I would rather see a Democratic Party that is forced to be responsive because its majority is always up for grabs if it slips than a safe thin majority.  In a sense, you could say that I am much more willing to gamble on the country's future.


Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 21:35:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Four disasters (0.00 / 0)

Three of the biggest disasters in my adult leftime occurred when the cnetral state tried to forcibly keep a country united when a sizeable ethnic-religious group wanted to split off.  The first of those was Biafra when a Christian region tried to secede from the mostly Moslem and animist country of Nigeria.  Wikipedia says "hundreds of thousans maybe millions" died from the starvation due to a military blockade.  My memory at the time was that it was more in the two million range.

The ethnic cleansing where Christian Serbs tried to hold Bosnian Moslems and others in a Yugoslav government under Serb domination is pretty well known.

A similar situation is occuring in the Sudan where the Arab/Moslem north is brutally enforcing unity (and its dictatorship) over the black African/Christian south.  Like the Yugoslav situation, it has been going on for a long time.

The fourth instance followed a cyclone that totally devastated what was then East Pakistan.  The government, also Moslem but under the ethnic control of West Pakistan, was not helpful in the least.  They put down civil unrest with plentiful examples of rape and terror.  Wikipedia estimates that as many as three million people may have perished in the turmoil leading to the establishment of Bangladesh.

Artificial unions like Yugoslavia or "Pakistan" (East and West) are not worth that kind of suffering.  The US has been reluctant to intervene, favoring the unitary governments except in the situation of the splintering Yugoslavia.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 18:00:44 PM CST

What about Rwanda? (4.00 / 2)

In that case, an ethnic group sought to forcibly make citizenship an ethnically-defined category (by killing or driving abroad all who did not belong to that category).  I would count the Rwandan genocide as one of the most serious atrocities of the last 30 years. 

The Yugoslavia case is actually more complicated than you suggest.  During Tito's reign (which basically spanned the Cold War), citizenship was defined in strictly non-sectarian terms (Yugoslavia was a non-aligned, socialist country).  In the 80s, this non-sectarian Yugoslav identity eroded due to various factors, creating a situation in which ethnically and religiously defined state-lets began to emerge.  "Serbia" is itself a product of devolutionary tendencies, and the massacres in Yugoslavia occurred only after a non-sectarian model of citizenship had been eroded...

 

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 18:30:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Precisely! (0.00 / 0)

The danger comes from contentrated force and capacity for violance.  Checks and balances or the lack thereof, and the cultural norms that go with them are fundamental here.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 11:54:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

there's more going on than meets the eye (0.00 / 0)

1) the reason for the devolution movements in europe has lots to do with the rise of the european union. The EU will handle most of the health care/defense needs that have traditionally been handled by nation states. Meanwhile areas like Wales, Catalan, the Basque regions, etc have been getting the short end of the nation-state stick and the shit is getting old. The less relevance that national governments have, the more of them we'll have.

2) nationalism and what we call ethnic groups are really linguistic distinctions, not "racial" ones. The research is piling up that "race" is meaningless bullshit. However, language is a real bond among people. A native language is the operating system of the brain. Growing up as a native speaker of Catalan or Gaelic leaves people at a distinct disadvantage when trying to navigate a government that runs on Castilian Spanish or English.

3) the era of the nation-state is ending. It was a nice long run, but it's almost over. The rise of mercenary armies like blackwater and terrorist organizations like al queda or japan's aum shinrikyo cult that are capable of offering an existential threat to a wealthy nation-state are signs. The imminent collapse of mexico is another.

---

by: Texas Nate @ Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 21:16:00 PM CST

I like the direction you are taking this. n/t (0.00 / 0)

Jeff Wegerson - Prairie State Blue

---

by: wegerje @ Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 23:07:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

All interesting points (0.00 / 0)

As long as the first part of #1 holds true: "he EU will handle most of the health care/defense needs that have traditionally been handled by nation states."

I'm unaware of the EU handling any health care needs. If they start doing that, then you might very well be onto something.

Even so, part of my problem is that there will be non-Welsh, non-Catalan, and other minorities inside these new autonomous regions. What happens to them? I worry not only the collapse of social welfare nets, but also of a further process of cordoning peole off into separate ghettos.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 10:17:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Precisely! (0.00 / 0)

I have no problem with the empowering of subnational regions that are bound by common languages, which have been marginalized over the past several centuries.  I am all for having government functions handled at the lowest possible level, the level closest to the people, that will actually get the job done, rather than the define the problem out of existence.

And scapegoating minorities is one of the most efficient ways of defining problems out of existence.

The egalitarian and authoritarian logics of devolution are very, very different from one another, and close attention must be paid, particularly since authoritarians just loves them some blurring strategy.

Ron Paul, anyone?

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 12:00:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

that's my bet (0.00 / 0)

The residents of Belgium take national health as a given. They won't sit still for any situation that fucks that up. It's only a matter of time before EU starts taking over functions like that in regions that are amenable to it.

Keep in mind also that Belgium is a very artificial nation-state comprised of speakers of 4 different languages: Dutch, French, Walloon & German.

The Flemish split from the Netherlands and their fellow-Dutch speakers over the Catholic/Protestant split back in the day. The modern, secular Netherlands might be a much more logical home for them still.

I think devolution is a good thing for Belgium but it'll be a little bumpy. However I see very little likelihood of violence. It's pretty amazing to me how far Europe has come in 100 years.

Now if they could just learn how to assimilate Islamic immigrants!

---

by: Texas Nate @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 18:50:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There are some cases, though (0.00 / 0)

where I can see that the locals might not feel all that comfortable staying as part of their home country.  It was a jailable offense to be seen in public speaking Basque under Franco.  Parents would have discussions with their children regarding whether or not to learn the language. 

I could see how some could feel that Basques would look out for a Spanish minority in an independent basque country than the spaniards have looked out for them.

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 00:11:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Devolution is not the end of the world (0.00 / 0)

Devolution is not likely to lead to violence or slaughter in  Belgium. The  devolution of Czech and Slovakia.....and Sweden and Norway have not been horrible for humanity.

The biggest obstacle for devolutionists in Belgium is what to do about Brussels.

Another ethical concern is how do you split up resources when there is a substantial differential.  When the richer spouse splits with most of the dough (in this case the Flemish)...this can exacerbate power disparities.

I am generally in favor of lessening the power of the nation state by devolving some power up to the European Union and some power down to more local language/culture based groupings.

The US will have to face questions of this kind sooner than people think. Particularly with regards to devolving power to global governance institutions.  Addressing climate, Ocean, Environmental, Internet, and economic challenges will demand global solutions that are beyond the capacity of nation states to solve.

---

by: amberwaves @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 01:14:39 AM CST

That's Not Devolving! (4.00 / 1)

The US will have to face questions of this kind sooner than people think. Particularly with regards to devolving power to global governance institutions.

Devolving is when power is distributed downward. What you are talking about is referring power to the appropriate problem-solving level, which is what an egalitarian, as opposed to an authoritarian, strategy calls for.

Authoritarians are all for devolution, since egalitarians have, after centuries of strong, amassased considerable power, influence, and moral authority at the national level, and devolving to ethnic enclavs is a quick way around this.  But they absolutely hate referring power upwards, since their world dominantion fantasies would be totally stymied by that.

The United Nations, don't forget, was not estabished out of thin air in 1945.  It was the name often used to describe the Allies fighting against Hitler during WWII.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 12:06:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The US is an historic anamoly (0.00 / 0)

and as such our experience cannot really provide a good benchmark by which to judge other counties and societies. Of course, our own sectarian tendencies have been horrific in their consequences for many Americans. E.g. the Civil War, Jim Crow, the nativist and anti-Catholic movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, and of course the current anti-illegal immigrant hysteria. So it's no wonder that we look askance as other countries' separatist movements.

But the issue here is not merely a powerful majority classifying a minority group and treating it as an inferior, but a minority group classifying itself as a separate group and seeing separation as the only viable means of gaining first class status. It is usually the historically mistreated minority group that seeks separation, not the majority group. E.g. Kosovars, Palestinians, Irish, Scots, Low Countries, Kurds, Tibetans, Native Americans, etc.

I don't know much about the Belgian devolution movement except that I've read that the two groups appear to not like each other much, and each have their own language, history and culture. If feelings are so acrimonious after being a country for so long, perhaps devolution of some sort does make sense (although it seems to me that maintaining some sort of loose confederation might be wise on a purely practical level). Although perhaps in this instance it's more about tribalism than seeking recourse for genuine persecution.

But generally speaking, I think that some sort of devolution often makes sense, when it's desired as a means of relief from genuine persecution. Plus, I also think that allowing self-identified groups some form of autonomy often makes it possible for eventual reconciliation. It was only after the American Revolution (and the passage of time) that the US and England were able to become such strong allies. No, we are not politically united again, nor will we ever be. But I think that it provides a good example of where devolution (be it peaceful and lawful or violent and unlawful) makes a lot of sense, when the entity that secedes has in fact been persecuted (as opposed to the US Civil War, in which no such situation existed).

I think that the world is SLOWLY inching towards some form of political unification (assuming it doesn't destroy itself first), but not until the many instances of tribalism in the world first work themselves out. I.e. I suspect that there will need to be more political divorces before there can be more political unification. In Belgium's case, I honestly don't know enough to tell if this is for valid and wise (e.g. US Revolution) or selfish and stupid (e.g. US Civil War) reasons. And so long as they keep the chocolate and cheese coming, whatever.

---

by: kovie @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 04:51:24 AM CST

Belgium is a special case (4.00 / 2)

Belgium wasn't created by nationalism, but by the great powers. The Netherlands got the entire area in 1814, but Wallonia had much more in common with France, so it rebelled at some time around 1830. The great powers forced William of the Netherlands to accept this, and also to let the Belgians have Flanders, because Wallonia would otherwise have been absorbed by France and Belgium was a useful buffer state anyway.

You then have a very federalised state, with two languages and no meaningful political party operating in both communities. You also have resentment in the more industrialised area of Flanders because it essentially subsidises the rural hinterland of Wallonia. And really, it's the increasing nationalism which is tearing it apart. Belgium as a term, after all, is a deliberate archaicism derived from the Belgae, a Celtic tribe who Caesar encountered.

All the problems in Belgium prove is that high politics is more concerned with preserving the status quo, not about creating states which properly represent their inhabitants.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 06:35:50 AM CST

Big In Japan (0.00 / 0)

"The ethnically homogeneous nation state is, I believe, a relic of past."

Holy smokes, really?

It would be neat if it were, but the USA is probably the most ethnically heterogeneous nation-state, and we can't get it right. Most nation-states are still ethnically homogeneous, and they generally bristle at the sight of outsiders.

Been to Japan lately? They'll walk right pass someone pissing or puking right on the sidewalk. But if they see a roundeye, they'll cast a distrustful gaze. White people rank below vomit in Japan.

It's similar in a lot of other countries too. I'm not buying your idea that ethnic/racial nationalism is over.

---

by: D'arby Salt @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 11:58:29 AM CST