It seems that on the issue of the North American Union there are two sides which have gotten a lot of prominence. There are those who believe, despite a dearth of evidence for some of their specific claims, that President Bush is fiendishly plotting a supranational government for North America and there are those who emotionally, blusteringly dismiss it as hogwash. I wish I could say that I shared the latter's sentiments, but despite the conspiracy theorizing of the former, there are historical merits to the charge that a union is in the future.
The European Union is held up to be the archetype of the North American Union, by some, and that is what should make sober-minded individuals cringe that it might be true. The history of the European Union is a convoluted and obfuscated one that began innocently enough. Conceived of as a common market to encourage post-World War II trade and economic rivalry (as opposed to war-making), it began its existence as the humble European Coal and Steel Community, a sort of 1950s NAFTA. In fact, what is astounding about the European Union's history, from a public knowledge point of view, is this quote from blogger Vox Day:
It is worth noting that the European Union is celebrating its 50th anniversary 14 years after it officially became the European Union and four years after the introduction of the Euro.
One of my personal favorite assumptions from the blustering skeptic crowd is the assertion that it's bogus on its face because the American people would never tolerate such an encroachment on their sovereignty. This, however, is historically untrue as Margaret Thatcher, a conservative leader who is undeniably more politically astute than the average Briton or American was herself completely duped by the European Union in a similar process. On her role in unionization, she has said:
"The wisdom of hindsight, so useful to historians and indeed to authors of memoirs, is sadly denied to practicing politicians. Looking back, it is now possible to see the period of my second term as prime minister as that in which the European Community subtly but surely shifted its direction away from being a community of open trade, light regulation and freely co-operating sovereign nation-states towards statism and centralism."
It goes without saying that if a leader as astute and generaly principled as Margaret Thatcher could be fooled by the advocates of the European Union, that those for whom politics is simply pulling a letter for a political party will hardly even notice an incipient union until it is too late. This is no appeal to a gnostic secret knowledge possessed by only a select few conspiracy theorists, but a simple fact of politics. It does not matter what the average American will approve or disapprove if they are neither as observant as their leaders (how else can they see danger?), nor have the gumption to throw out people who are already egregiously damaging American sovereignty through their stubborn defense of illegal immigration.
The involvement of the Bush Administration in the unionization process is fundamentally the red herring of the skeptics. They use it as a way to say that there is no danger, nothing to worry about, move along! The reason that this is a red herring is that it is an attempt to dispove an alleged larger political process by the presence or absence of an alleged group of members, not an attack on the alleged process itself. This too is where skeptics fall down. It is intellectually weak and unacceptable to simultaneously attack the views (and in Michael Medved's case, the persons) of those who claim the existance of a unionization while hopping around shouting "the onus is on you to prove your claims." While it is true that all who suspect a union is slowly occuring must provide justification, those who disagree have an equal obligation to explain why they disagree. In general, those who consider themselves "too good" to explain themselves lack anything more than emotional disagreement.
In general, the skeptics find it very difficult to believe that illegal immigration can play a pivotal role in this, but there are a few good reasons. First, it will have the effect of dilluting the culturally American population with many people who really may not wish for their kids to become "red-blooded Americans." Second, combined with the pervasive identity politics of modern America, there will be greater pressure to dillute loyalty to a sovereign United States, and to split that loyalty between ancestral homelands and America. Finally, when immigration happens in waves, it becomes a migration, and migrations have historically shifted at least some of the native political power into the hands of the newcomers. Rome and its relationship with its germanic neighbors provides a useful lesson here, as the germanic tribes later started becoming true powers within the Roman state.
When one looks at the "state of government" today, and compares it to what existed a century prior, it is obvious that there has been a trend toward internationalization of government. 100 years ago, there weren't any bonafide international bodies analogous to the World Trade Organization or World Intellectual Property Organization, nor was there an International Criminal Court or a United Nations. Europe was brutally, militantly divided along imperial lines. Today, it is tied together under strong confederation to a continental government. One might conclude, therefore, that the forces of history have since the start of the twentieth century, been on the side of unionization.
America's own history should provide a stark reality check to the skeptics who immediately dismiss the idea of surreptitious and eventual unionization. In early 1787, America was weak and divided. It was composed of 13 sovereign republics in loose confederation. What was intended to be a mere "fixer upper" process for the Articles of Confederation turned into a secret convention to write a whole new system of government. In fact, no one outside of the convention knew that the whole nature of the convention had shifted until it was over. That would eventually give us a federation that, through large investments in transportation and communication systems, as well as the Civil War which created a much more powerful national army, fundamentally shifted the balance of power away from those old republican states over the course of a few generations.
Based on what I think is plain in front of us, I think skeptics and conspiracy theorists alike are barking up the wrong trees in their own ways. If--and when--this day comes, it will, like the European Union, be a combination of surreptitious scheming, ignorance, an unhealthy valuing of efficiency over all things by the political class and historic inevitability. It would behove skeptics and conspiracy theorists alike to get a grip on reality and history, and realize that these things are far more complicated than either their dark fantasies or blustering denial will admit because too much is at stake to not be wary of the warning signs.
Previous posts of mine on North American unionization:
Here.
Here.
This post was inspired by this post from Right Wing News.