One World

For those of you that have had a conversation about politics with me during the last year or so, you'll know that I believe that youth suffrage is *the* silver bullet to most of our political problems. If you haven't had that conversation with me - and let me persuade you for half an hour or so - you will probably dismiss this idea out of hand. I'm in the process of penning a thorough defense of my position on the subject that I hope will spark a hearty debate and eventually will change some minds. But that is for another day.

Today while I was imagining such a debate, I played through my mind the following opposing argument:

You say that children in America are affected by US policies yet have no right to change them. Well this is the case with all peoples on earth. The rest of the world had an enormous amount at stake during the previous election, and yet they were required to sit by as mere spectators, not even permitted to make financial contributions. Should the rest of the world vote in US elections? (NB- this is not the only argument I make for youth suffrage. It is one of many and a minor one at that.)

There are two answers to this question- one legal and one philosophical.

The legal one is that the US affects the rest of the world because of its geopolitical position, not because of any inherent national distinction (American exceptionalism aside). If, in, say, 80 years or so, the US represented the same geopolitical force as France or Britain does today, then there would be no legitimate reason to have input on domestic elections from the world body. The world, under those circumstances, would no longer be so affected by US domestic decisions. But our youth still would, therefore the argument that one leads naturally from the other is incorrect.

However, it does lead us to an interesting alternate narrative which I quite prefer. And that is answer number two. Assuming youth voting was a fait accompli, and we had spread enfranchisement as far as we could on our own shores, we could begin to pay heed to other countries' sensible desire to have a say in US politics which, admittedly, affects them quite directly.

This assumes two things - that the US recovers completely from the economic downturn and that the US maintains its role as superpower and world economic juggernaut. If these two conditions persist, then the rest of the world will consider themselves to have an interest in US political outcomes for a very long time to come.

So I would say, then, let's do business. What would these countries give in exchange for their votes?

My own feeling is that if they would be willing to abide by our laws, then they should be considered for a sort of adjunct statehood.

It would have to be considered one nation at a time and would have to happen very slowly so as not to dilute the character and nature of our country by adding in too many foreign cultures all at once. But it wouldn't be so hard to imagine Canada or Britain being annexed by the US in exchange for some representation in congress and a say in who is elected president.

My feeling is that the EU is an experiment that will largely lead nowhere and that the countries of that continent will likely be served by putting their allegiances elsewhere- particularly as their own peculiar national identities dissolve in the process of globalization.

Becoming a state in our union would indeed be a way to preserve independence and to influence international law.


Once the English-speaking countries and perhaps Mexico were enfranchised, France, India, and other democracies could join as well. Eventually a "reform"-based incentive structure could be developed for the rest of the world as well, encouraging them to form open, representative governments.

One could easily, then, envision a time when the world had but one country, the democratic system of the United States having reached across the globe and sown democratic process where once there was only warfare.

This would be an impressive achievement in global unity to say the least. In fact, it is what is already happening, though nation-states still hold nominal sway. We are growing, through trade, a global culture that has less to do with lines on a map than by cultural and commercial intercourse. To place those nations states under the systemic umbrella of the world's oldest and most successful democracy would seem a just and sensible way to orchestrate their disparate wills.


Since I don't expect youth suffrage to come to pass for at least half a century, this idea might be quite far off, even in consideration- although there is no explicit need for youth suffrage to predate this sort of internationalism. But a century or so out would seem like a good prediction- long enough for the world's developing economies to have a strong enough position of their own and so would have something to contribute to the US as a new state.


I like this idea a lot. It can give us something to look to over the hump of the financial crisis. At the moment it appears that some sort of loose global federation will become the basis of the international system, the US being so horribly weakened by the 9/11 response and George W. Bush. But a resurgence in US power is not at all out of the question if we play our cards right in the coming years. No other country has the might, will, or global respect to take America's place, and truly no country would really want the responsibility. Countries whose identities are based on tribal/genetic nationalism do not have the same mandate as those which are based on a "mission," as it were, to form a new world. And there is only one of those on earth. But to form a new world requires cooperation from the whole world. Perhaps it is time to begin to think outside our own borders to see what that new world might look like.