(no subject)
This may only be interesting to me because of my background and because I'm taking a couple of classes on it at the moment, but I found the recent outrage at British citizens writing letters to undecided voters in support of Kerry to be particularily interesting.
Background: A liberal newspaper in Great Britain asked its readers to send letters to undecided voters encouraging them to vote. It ordered a list of registered voters from some Ohio county, and then proceeded to give out the addresses of all those listed as unaffiliated or independent to its readers. The readers weren't specifically asked to be in support of Kerry, but the newspaper's readship is overwhelmingly anti-Bush and I think Britains are something like 80-20 in favor of Kerry anyway.
Just looking at it from a globalization perspective, it's obvious what's going on. The winner of the presidential election is going to affect more than just U.S. citizens, but only citizens have a right to vote and choose.
As this is the first presidential election I'm going to have a say in, I can certainly understand why the rest of the world is frustrated as hell. If Bush wins, his policies are going to have a humongous effect on what happens in Iraq, Europe, everywhere, and Kerry would be the same. U.K. citizens can't vote, so they're left trying to sway the election by attempting to exert influence on those who can.
I think this exposes a fundamental flaw in our current globalization cycle. In the other two that come to mind (the Romans, and then British imperialistic expansion a few centuries back), there were processes in place that set up a system where outskirt communities could be integrated into the mainstream and thereby gain an influence on the main society's politics.
In Rome, there was a specific process that could be followed to allow settlements -- even settlements that hadn't originally been Italian -- to become colonia. As colonia, everyone living in the city who qualified would become a citizen. They'd have to pay taxes, but they also gained access to Roman law.
The processes are a lot less clear under Britain, but even so, outskirt communities still BELIEVED that they possessed the ability to become integrated into the system. After all, the American Revolution originally started because we were fighting for representation in parliament -- we weren't part of the mainstream, but we wanted to join it so we could influence politics.
Today, we let individuals migrate and become citizens, but there are no processes in place that let entire communities become equals in our political community. Statehood is stupid -- countries in Europe aren't going to want to give up their national identity to become some subservient nation, but the U.S. is unwilling to do anything else to extend its political processes to anything besides individuals.
In the end, I think that's going to be the failing of this globalization cycle. Even as national identies break down economically and socially, they're still going to be there politically, and I think it's unrealistic and far too idealistic to assume that anyone in our current system would accept the world-wide government that is needed to rectify this problem.
The disenfranchised already outnumber us. Eventually, they're going to get pissy and the U.S.'s reign of power will end.
And can I also point out how ironically hypocritical it is for a country that opposes integration into the E.U. because they don't want anyone else to have a say in their policies to attempt to sway another country's internal election? I mean, sheesh. I wish you Britains would just make up your minds. Either you're for people sticking their noses into the politics of other countries or you're against it. You can't just be against it when it's happening to you.
Background: A liberal newspaper in Great Britain asked its readers to send letters to undecided voters encouraging them to vote. It ordered a list of registered voters from some Ohio county, and then proceeded to give out the addresses of all those listed as unaffiliated or independent to its readers. The readers weren't specifically asked to be in support of Kerry, but the newspaper's readship is overwhelmingly anti-Bush and I think Britains are something like 80-20 in favor of Kerry anyway.
Just looking at it from a globalization perspective, it's obvious what's going on. The winner of the presidential election is going to affect more than just U.S. citizens, but only citizens have a right to vote and choose.
As this is the first presidential election I'm going to have a say in, I can certainly understand why the rest of the world is frustrated as hell. If Bush wins, his policies are going to have a humongous effect on what happens in Iraq, Europe, everywhere, and Kerry would be the same. U.K. citizens can't vote, so they're left trying to sway the election by attempting to exert influence on those who can.
I think this exposes a fundamental flaw in our current globalization cycle. In the other two that come to mind (the Romans, and then British imperialistic expansion a few centuries back), there were processes in place that set up a system where outskirt communities could be integrated into the mainstream and thereby gain an influence on the main society's politics.
In Rome, there was a specific process that could be followed to allow settlements -- even settlements that hadn't originally been Italian -- to become colonia. As colonia, everyone living in the city who qualified would become a citizen. They'd have to pay taxes, but they also gained access to Roman law.
The processes are a lot less clear under Britain, but even so, outskirt communities still BELIEVED that they possessed the ability to become integrated into the system. After all, the American Revolution originally started because we were fighting for representation in parliament -- we weren't part of the mainstream, but we wanted to join it so we could influence politics.
Today, we let individuals migrate and become citizens, but there are no processes in place that let entire communities become equals in our political community. Statehood is stupid -- countries in Europe aren't going to want to give up their national identity to become some subservient nation, but the U.S. is unwilling to do anything else to extend its political processes to anything besides individuals.
In the end, I think that's going to be the failing of this globalization cycle. Even as national identies break down economically and socially, they're still going to be there politically, and I think it's unrealistic and far too idealistic to assume that anyone in our current system would accept the world-wide government that is needed to rectify this problem.
The disenfranchised already outnumber us. Eventually, they're going to get pissy and the U.S.'s reign of power will end.
And can I also point out how ironically hypocritical it is for a country that opposes integration into the E.U. because they don't want anyone else to have a say in their policies to attempt to sway another country's internal election? I mean, sheesh. I wish you Britains would just make up your minds. Either you're for people sticking their noses into the politics of other countries or you're against it. You can't just be against it when it's happening to you.