For those not familiar with the “world government” movement, the idea has been around for a long time. Back in the early days it was proposed not surprisingly in a format that mirrored the nation-state’s political framework; it was envisioned as a super state with all the attendant trappings of the nation-state, a constitution, government bureaucracy, legislatures, judges and presidents. Usually it was thought of in federalist terms since a federal system was considered optimum for a global super state. All of this might seem like common sense to most people and you might wonder why I bother to mention something that would be seemingly obvious; that is, why point out that a world government would likely entail having a constitution? Funny you’d ask that. Because common sense is apparently not so common in our day and age.
Over the decades this rather quaint idea of the “super state” started to sound a little stale so the groupies in the sixties sought a set of ideas that might score a little better on the hip-index. People love to come up with not-so-new ideas and call them their own. So, the idea of world government began to take a weird turn. In fact, it is ironically about this time that the idea of world government began to arouse so much negativity in the minds of the general public. Coincidence? No. Let me explain.
If you stop and think about it, the idea of a world government is really not an intrinsically “evil” or bad idea. Once you address the obvious problems associated with it (we’ve discussed some here) then it is an honest and reasonable proposition that need not harbor or conceal untoward motive. So, why did it become such a dark and evil concept in the eyes, at least, of most Americans? I think it became an unpopular idea the minute the advocates with the largest voice in the movement decided that due to its unpopularity (mostly because it just wasn’t well known to the public) they would just opt for an underground, below the table, dishonest and deceptive approach to creating a secretive cabal of elitists who would act as a world government of sorts without any knowledge or input of the general public … until it was too late for the general public to stop it. This kind of mercenary approach is never durable and always tends toward its own collapse. But, as I’ve stated elsewhere, I do not believe that we learn from history. We just keep repeating the same mistakes. And that is probably because the ability to avoid the mistakes was always absent in the first place.
This trend that began in the sixties toward a secretive and unaccountable form of global influence and control has had a devastating impact on the public’s perception of “world government”. Sadly, I think this is one of the biggest mistakes made in political thought in a long time. And the reader should not be confused. This is something that was done “in the open”, just in formats and venues that most people don’t pay much attention to. That’s because elitists have always worked this way. There is nothing really planned or intentional about that aspect.
So, it is not really a conspiracy, it’s a modus operandi.
But the better question is why did this happen?
The 1960s was a creepy and bizarre decade for the United States. Ever since the president sent the first combatant U.S. soldiers to Da Nang in 1965 he was working night and day to salve his conscience over the totally unnecessary killing of over 2 million people in that region of the world. As baffling as it is, one should remember the contrivance of the Gulf of Tonkin incident way back then when we think about Iran and its “nuclear weapons program”, of the IRI’s presidential comments about “destroying Israel” (totally false) and other such antagonistic nonsense used to provoke other nations into conflict. I will let the reader figure out whether it was LBJ or his delegates who were responsible for all this bally-hoo; indeed the reader might consider what LBJ’s delegates did to him mentally when he declined the Democratic Party’s nomination for President ‘round about ’69. No one declines that job without a very, very chilling reason. So, whatever the case, LBJ pursued a vigorous domestic policy including a “war on poverty” that resulted in a massive bloating and explosion of U.S. federal bureaucracy. This was the birth of the “new” new world order. The world order I envision I refer to as the “final world order” to distinguish it from the hijacked one.
The transition of thinking in global constitutionalism toward a model in which existing bureaucrats, unelected officials acting in public capacities (think business persons and investors) and government institutions are simply empowered to act as executors of an unwritten global social contract was a natural extension of the cult of bureaucracy that developed and blossomed in the United States in the 1960s. It was a result not just of the cult’s self-interest of survival but of the cult’s self-interest in growth and expansion, of domination and control far beyond the limited sphere of federal agency influence they once had as employees of U.S. government agencies and as well-endowed capitalists.
It is Poe’s “hideous dropping of the veil”, the House of Usher built in the 1960s in northern California, the ultimate extent and appearance of the malignancy of unaccountable bureaucracy when allowed to grow without bound. And its modern-day advocates are typically baby boomers who lived in the era of its formation and who today fight not just for its survival, but its growth and increased influence and power globally. Once fragmented, disparate and without a combined voice, the bureaucrats of most or all of the world’s governments – having thence followed LBJ’s example – have united and hijacked the global governance movement. Welcome to the Brave New World Huxley warned you about.
One of this cancers greatest growth hormones is a very influential person named Ann-Marie Slaughter who back in 2004 wrote a seminal work on this bureaucratic vision of world domination called, “A New World Order”. Now, to be fair in saying this, Anne-Marie is entitled to her view and we simply disagree, which is okay. And the comparison I am about to make is not between Anne-Marie and Hitler, or her ideas and Hitler’s, but a comparison between the style of her approach and Hitler’s when writing Mein Kampf. In Mein Kampf Hitler laid bare, for all the world to see, exactly how he felt about certain groups of people in German society at that time, including Gypsies and Jews. Slaughter, in a similar way, lays bare her rather shocking view that unelected bureaucrats should be in full control of the globe. She doesn’t say it that way, but that is clearly what her statements mean. She calls them “judges”, “business leaders”, “regulators”, etc. To think that educated specialists are the best ones to rule, and that they should do so with little or no accountability, is a fallacy we’ve encountered innumerable times in history and which we have seen wax Epic Fail just as many times. One of them was a place called Rome. That someone as educated as Slaughter would be even contemplating this is shocking … until you realize who she represents. She’s just a part of that cabal I mentioned; the cabal of bureaucrats and sycophants that want to extend their own importance globally. Slaughter does not care about what I care about.
And this system of global control exists currently but is just limited in scope and extent. For now it might work fairly well since the bureaucrats are still tightly controlled and bound to constituencies (relatively speaking). Slaughter provides example after example of how well it works today. Indeed, it sounds a bit like the description of Hitler’s well run public services such as public transportation and crime control. But as time goes on and the system expands this token connection and loyalty to the constituency will loosen and grow tenuous and weak. And power will accrete in proportion to its reciprocal. As the accretion mounts the corruption will grow as there is no accountability mechanism to restrain it.
In the discourse of nations through history no lesson has been learnt at more cost and with more clarity than the simple proposition that no power without direct accountability to The People will remain virtuous any longer than the time it takes a man to blink his eyes.
But it is far, far worse than what history alone can explicitly illustrate. In this case we are talking about a special case of power accretion. It is the accretion of power under circumstances where the risk is stable but the benefit or gain is unparalleled in all of human experience. Power at a global level has never been seen before but is clearly far greater than anything with which we have any experience. It is disconcerting to see how readily so many of Slaughter’s ilk discount or marginalize this problem, apparently never realizing the centrality of this issue to the entire notion of global constitutionalism.
Global rule of law can emerge victorious in virtue and fidelity to the interests of The People only when a codified, very transparent and well discussed system of fundamental law is put forward, debated and democratically ratified by all parties affected. There can be no secret cabals or “councils of bureaucrats” behind the scenes. Accountability is central to the legitimacy of rule and to the application of rule of law and General Federalism is the only viable means of achieving this on a global scale.