JohnRobb has a fascinating comment :
I am not sure why most people were surprised by Bush's inaugural speech. It contains the essence of what swept the Republicans to power, and what will keep them there. What is it? It is the last gasp of the idea of a "nation" – a people with a common beliefs, origin, and history. Bush merely pumped the idea that American nationalism was exceptional.
The problem is that we live in a market-world. Our ability to compete effectively in these global markets determines our long-term success. Muscular nation-states don't do well in this environment. They involve themselves in non-economic behavior that radically harms their ability to compete effectively.
You can actually argue that many of the authoritarian right-wing leaders we saw in the late 2010s ... TheFarRightCoup / GlobalTrumpism / Brexit were partly attempts to reassert the Nation State against the perception of its loss to GlobalizationAndItsDiscontents, WorldGovernment and transnational organizations like the EU.
(And to think people still sneer at XEqualsHitler analogies.)
WilliamLind asks if it's worth a non-state actor becoming a state? https://web.archive.org/web/20060706153702/http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind705_06.htm
He's probably wrong / too cynical about what Islamic non-state actors want.
IslamicState are the counter-example. They don't want to be outlaw WarMachines. They want to be the state. And civilization as they see it, on their own terms.
See also :
Backlinks (35 items)