On Federalism, Nation-States, and Other

Matters
Heilbroners contention that our sense of identification, which is to say, identification with
persons or roups of persons we tend to affiliate and bond with, is limited to national identification
at best! that rarely if e"er do we transcend the ethnic bond so as to become a part of somethin
thats reater than us, a part of somethin thats also meaninful and lastin, li#e a brotherhood
of men, for instance, or people of a #indred spirit, whate"er$ is the wea#est lin# in his chain of
reasonin% &"erythin else, includin his positin of nation-states as thouh the ultimate in our
political arranements, as our crownin achie"ement when it comes to political orani'ations,
follows%
Ne"er mind that Heilbroner marshals reasons, some of them coent, others less so, in support of
his thesis, namely, that nothin short of resolute political authority can sta"e off the lobal
daners and challenes facin human#ind! considerin the paradim hes wor#in with, we may
aree with him to a point% (ts his claim that the re)uisite #ind of authority must reside in nation-
states and nation-states alone which is in dispute here and which ets him into all sorts of
difficulties% *nd if we proceed on the assumption that lobal problems and challenes facin the
human prospect re)uire lobal solutions, nothin but, a fairly straihtforward assumption, ( should
thin#, not only when ta#en at face "alue but also in terms of Heilbroners own pro+ect, then we
cant help but conclude that he failed miserably%
One e,ample should suffice% *s part of enuine concern with our ability to meet and to respond to
lobal challenes which face us, we cant fi, our sihts on the immediate present alone, to the
e,clusion of e"erythin else, but must concern oursel"es with the future as well! with the future of
our children and randchildren, and so on and so forth! and the reason is ob"ious- some of the
daners Heilbroner is alludin to, for instance, lobal warmin or the e"entual depletion of &arths
resources, ra"e and impendin as each may be, arent li#ely to impact the present eneration
sufficiently to re)uire us to alter our lifestyles, and drastically so, only the future ones% (n short, the
proper stance on behalf of anyone who, +ust li#e Heilbroner, is truly concerned with the sur"i"al of
the species, and the planet, is to ta#e the lon "iew% .hich is e,actly what he does, as he
in"ariably must% His last chapter, in fact, a fittin conclusion to the Inquiry, bears a catchy title,
.hat Has /rosperity &"er 0one For Me1 2hetorical as this )uestion may be, were treated
there nonetheless to all the riht answers- we do bear a definite responsibility to future
enerations, to the future of human#ind$
3ut heres the catch, 4atch-55 if you li#e$ Since Heilbroner is so utterly con"inced that national
identification is the best we can do here and now, that enerally spea#in it is contrary to human
nature to form bonds and affiliations which transcend ethnic and6or national boundaries, whats
the cash "alue of sayin that we can e"er brea# the pattern and do the une,pected, if not now
then soon1 7heres no basis whate"er for ma#in this #ind of inference$ (f the 8an#s can bond
and associate only with other 8an#s, and if the same oes for the Me,icans and the Frenchmen
as well, and so on and so forth, then how can we possibly bond with future enerations1
9enerations of nondescript ethnic or national oriin, much less with the entire human race, or in
fact, with all those who are :still; li"in, those who are :already; dead, and those who are :yet; to
be born, if we cant do so here and now1 7he whole idea is preposterous and buildin upon it is
li#e buildin on )uic#sand% 8et, this is e,actly whats re)uired of us if we are to ta#e the lon "iew,
determined as we may be, indeed, as we must be, if were to repel the lobal daners and
challenes which face us% 7he bottom line is, Heilbroners +ust too cauht up in the web of
contradictions of his own ma#in, to ma#e any sense at all% Hes simply incoherent on the sub+ect%
7he "ery idea is incoherent$
Now, lets be clear about one thin- its 3ur#es idea that Heilbroner is reuritatin here% 3ut
3ur#es idea wasnt meant to apply to human#ind at lare, only to a human society in a particular
space and time! one bound besides by a set of common norms, "alues and mores, ways of habit,
ways of thouht and ways of doin thins! bound by a shared ethos, howe"er defined or
circumscribed% Hence Heilbroners rather incessant stress on national identification in order to
pro"ide 3ur#es immortal words with a proper conte,t, one as wide as possible, so as to endow
those words with their proper meanin% 3ut it all falls short in the final analysis if the ob+ect is
humanity itself, all of humanity, that is, there bein no limits, no boundaries, no borders% So yes, if
the ob+ect is to come up with lobal solutions to lobal problems, nation-states, independent and
fore"er warrin nation-states, is definitely not the way to o% For all his erudition and
sophistication, and some two hundred years or so of hindsiht to boot, Heilbroner had not
ad"anced "ery much beyond 3ur#e! and the same is true, (m afraid, of conser"ati"e thouht in
eneral%
Macphersons words, by contrast, are li#e a breath of fresh air-
From this [technical change in the methods of war, and all that it implies, is Macphersons major concern],
the possibility of a new rational political obligation arises. e cannot hope to get a !alid theory of obligation
of the indi!idual to a single national state alone. "ut if we postulate no more than the degree of rational
understanding, an acceptable theory of obligation of the indi!idual to a wider political authority should now
be possible.
Ma#e note of the operati"e term here, a wider political authority% *n independent nation-state
will no loner suffice, not e"en a networ# of independent or interdependent nation-states% From
Macphersons radical standpoint, the reason is they no loner command the re)uisite #ind of
authority, because their leitimacy to o"ern is no loner intact% From the lobal standpoint, the
standpoint of bein able to come up with lobal solutions to lobal problems, surely a deree of
cooperation is re)uired between said nation-states in order to et the ball rollin, if not
immediately or in any formal #ind of way, then soon thereafter, and when the time comes and the
air is cleared, formally so as well%
7o tell the truth, ( find it rather tellin that Heilbroner, for all the time and effort that had one into
writin the Inquiry, is silent on both counts- <(= )uestions concernin leitimacy to o"ern <and the
related problem of social +ustice= are simply brac#eted because the "ery paradim within which
such )uestions arise is accepted without )uestion! and <((=, e"en the )uestion of arri"in at lobal
solutions by a networ# of independent or interdependent nation-states supposedly wor#in in
tandem, surely one of the ma+or concerns which had prompted the Inquiry in the first place, is not
i"en its proper due and is simply assumed%
*ain, theres nothin wron per se with ma#in such an assumption <we do it all the time=, for its
a fact of life that common interests, especially when they assume the form of percei"ed threats
and daners which are deemed to affect all the interested parties e)ually, do ma#e for "ery
strane bedfellows indeed% *nd we dont need any sci-fi scenarios or hihfalutin tales to con"ince
us of that, the e"idence abounds of peoples, entire nations in fact, reachin out to form all #inds
of alliances and alleiances which happen to transcend the traditional confiuration i"en by the
present-day networ# of independent nation-states, from lobal-warmin6climate-chane
conferences to the economically-based hybrid which oes by the name of &>% *ain, theres
nothin odd about that$ 3ut it oes without sayin, and it is in this respect that Heilbroners
comprehension has failed him, that all such instances of reachin out, e"en if they dont
translate to immediate successes and their lifespan may be short-li"ed at first, are surely an
indication that somethin is rotten in the state of 0enmar#! that the present political confiuration
i"en by a networ# of independent or interdependent nation-states, lea"es a reat deal to be
desired! that somethin new and e,citin is afoot, a mo"ement that, i"en time, may well free us
from the political stranlehold, the strait+ac#et we"e all been wearin and laborin under, that it
may e"entually help us loosen some of the constraints with which we"e been saddled, the
institutional straps, and pro"ide us with a basis for hope%
(n any case, its a beinnin, a new and e,citin beinnin, ( daresay% 3ut Heilbroner, in his
obstinacy, is fore"er blind to the possibility, fore"er clinin li#e a drownin man to the concept of
e"er reinin nation-states, reinin absolutely and unconditionally, e"en down to the end of
history% *nd there are only two reasons for this- first, his obdurate belief that, when faced with an
imminent daner, people will tend to support and obey e"en the most authoritarian of
o"ernments simply because they"e been conditioned to do so from the et-o! and second, a
correspondin and e)ually obdurate belief, this time une,pressed but implicit nonetheless, that
nation-states, thus encouraed, are unli#ely to relin)uish e"en parts of their so"ereinty under the
circumstances%
3ut surely, the first is a dubious proposition if e"er there was one% *nd as to the second, who is to
say what nation-states will or will not do when push comes to sho"e1 .ho can "ouch for their
beha"ior, for anyones beha"ior, in fact, when the common ood is at sta#e1 *ll that were
entitled to say at this point, were in the realm of speculation, nothin but uesswor#% One thin,
howe"er, seems certain- we need to rethin# the concept of federalism, to re-in"ent it if we must, if
we are e"er to supersede and mo"e beyond the notion of nation-states reinin supreme as the
sole bearers of ultimate political authority% .hat we need is a new concept, one that miht
hopefully combine both our need to listen and to aree, a concept that would encompass the idea
of self-o"ernment, a form of o"ernment that would be based on both, and in e)ual parts! a
decision-ma#in process commonly adhered to and consensus as well% * tall order you say1 3ut
why not1 ( counter% Should we aim for anythin less1
(n any e"ent, (ll tend to these and related )uestions in due time% For the time bein, howe"er, let
me lea"e you with the followin thouht- (f theres a moral to this story, a fittin conclusion to the
recent series of essays on Heilbroner and his manum opus, its ot to be this <and (m referrin
here, howe"er indirectly, to a recent article, &conomics and /olitics- *ainst ?ular
Mar,ism, +ust so you et your bearins=-
/olitics trumps and supersedes all other human arranements and forms of orani'ation, social
or economic, because in the final analysis, only politics is about +ustice and nothin but +ustice%
4onse)uently, only a political solution, properly concei"ed and e,ecuted, can ma#e the re)uired
#ind of difference, the only difference that counts, because only politics can establish the rein of
+ustice, not only here and now but fore"er$