Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Why stop at 50 stars?
Will there only ever be 50 united States, or will we add more stars to the flag? Thomas P.M. Barnett thinks it is time to think about how to grow again:
Americans forget that these United States (incidentally, the only country in the world without a place name) constitute the planet's oldest and most successful multinational political and economic union. No union's ever consistently added stars over its lifetime like the U.S., which, by the way, still accounts for roughly one quarter of the global GDP (with the EU right on our tail and China gaining fast!).
Why did the United States stop growing?
Blame it on our cold-war containment strategy, which turned us into such a status-quo-protecting power, which is a true betrayal of our historical roots.
So where do we go from here?
Of course, anti-Americans would call this neo-imperialism, to which I would reply, what do you call it when the European Union adds a member?
Read the whole thing, and come back here to comment.
CWCID: Reader J.R.
27 Comments:
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Wed Sep 19, 08:19:00 PM:
Making DC a state isn't going to happen, ever. So let's just throw that out entirely.
But I like the idea, and have for a while, of annexing Canadian provinces in the future. Canada has two(!) different independence movements in it that I know of... one in Quebec, that everyone knows about, and a newer, smaller one in the West which feels that the population heavy eastern provinces are crazy and shouldn't have any business governing the westerners. Should Canada ever dissolve (and come on, who here could honestly see Canadians fighting a civil war over such an issue? After all, it's self-determination in action!) I sincerely hope that some of them give us a call.
I just don't see Mexico ever happening. First problem is the language barrier. Secondly, it's an economic basket-case, rife with corruption that puts Louisiana to shame, and it would be stupid of us to take those problems on as our own. Then there are the continual rebellions in the south, and the native nationalism which largely resents the US anyway.
Puerto Rico, maybe. At least it's a smaller bite.
The Cuba scenario is kind of pushing it too, IMO, but not completely implausible.
The basic reason that the US stopped expanding is... we ran out of room. Unless we want to start conquering more land and having *way* more kids, we're not going to see many more states in the future.
Oh, I just remembered. Last year I saw a statement by an Australian who advocated a union with the United States because the countries are so culturally similar. I think the reaction was sort of, 'meh.' But I wouldn't mind calling the Aussies countrymen, either. They still have a spine.
By 
, at
Wed Sep 19, 08:27:00 PM:
I think Puerto Rico and DC are the most likely, since they are already part of the US.
Next most likely are state splits. Texas can split anytime it wants to into up to five states, as the article points out. Lots of people in California have advocated splitting California, since it has at least three pretty distinct regions (the main problem being how to split up other areas, like the Central Coast). You might see an additional six states through state splitting.
If Canada split, via Quebec or otherwise, it does seem possible to imagine the English speaking portions joining the US, since they are already pretty similar economically and culturally. But Cuba? Cuba as a state was possible after the Spanish-American War, but the U.S. passed on that. Puerto Rico would have to be a state, and one working pretty well, for the US to accept Cuba.
By , at
Wed Sep 19, 10:26:00 PM:
People forget that the District of Columbia is a Congressional District. It was never intended to be a state, to have the same rights as a state, or to be administered as a state.
People done forgot their govment classes.
By Bryan C, at
Wed Sep 19, 10:37:00 PM:
Puerto Rico should definitely be in line ahead of DC. I think most of the District will end up retroceded into VA and Maryland (God help us) long before they'd become a state.
Cuba could work. Particularly if the US is quick about opening up the doors and moving in the jobs once the Castro clan finally shuffles off. It's certainly in a convenient enough location.
I sometimes like to suggest annexing Mexico when immigration comes up. Nip illegal immigration in the bud! Make them all citizens at once! I haven't decided if I'm serious or not.
By , at
Wed Sep 19, 10:45:00 PM:
Speaking as a Canadian, and an ardently pro-American Canadian at that, I've got to tell you that any part of Canada joining the United States just isn't in the cards.
Yes, Quebec might go its own way, although I doubt that happening... too much federal money handed to them (read, Ottawa collects it from Alberta and Ontario, and "re-distributes" it to, chiefly, vote-rich Quebec). But, assuming Quebec does separate AND remain intact (one very big question, that one), I believe Canada will evolve (devolve?) into a loose association of states, pretty much independent of one another; this would soon lead to a small number of tighter regional federations (for example, British Columbia/ Alberta/Saskatchewan/Manitoba; an openly pro-American federation, but very much an independant country; capital city Calgary... I'm a Saskatchewan resident, by the way). It would, also, let loose a latent spirit of free-wheeling independence which I feel exists just below the surface... at least out west where I dwell..., but which is kept under a kind of restraint out of deference to the "National Welfare" (no pun intended!). That feeling would be out the window, however, if Quebec peeled off to become an independent country.
No offense meant, but Canadians just don't identify with being "American", any more than Americans could identify with being "Canadian"; I'm sure you understand what I mean. That said, The U.S.A. and Canada have so very much to link us together as fast friends and partners that it would be foolish to even try to pull in opposite directions.
Oh, yes, almost forgot... Thank God for the U.S.A.! If not for America, Canada would most certainly NOT exist in it's present form.
By , at
Wed Sep 19, 11:06:00 PM:
What about the rest of the Caribbean? The US Virgin Islands would rate ahead of all those other places on your lists.
My other comment is none of this talk is welcome by anyone. North America, the US included, is fine the way it is. None of this will ever come to pass so lets stop upsetting our nice neighbors for no reason. Besides if any of it did come to pass, the only ones who would win are government workers.
By Steven, at
Wed Sep 19, 11:07:00 PM:
Sixteen new states!
Alberta, Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland & Labrador, New Brunswick, New South Wales, New Zealand, Nova Scotia & Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Queensland, Saskatchewan, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and West Indies*!
*A federation of Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, the Bahamas, Barbados, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the Virgin Islands (US & British), with a population of ~2,174,00. All selected for English and per capita PPP GDPs in excess of $10,000.
By , at
Wed Sep 19, 11:29:00 PM:
I think its high time we consider who should get the privilege to gain citizenship status. Instead of working to kick out people who want a piece of the action, we should be allowing people in and using that as a springboard for growth. Since Mexico won't deal with the border problem we should just claim 300 miles inside Mexico as ours and develop the place. Heck those people already see the US as theirs anyways. Might as well give them a government that gives them a better shot at success. Mexico is a basket case, but its awful because of its leadersihp. Alberta is another good candidate. Lets grow baby!
By , at
Wed Sep 19, 11:29:00 PM:
Steven's on the right track, but he's thinking too small.
I'd say, re-constitute a major portion of the British Empire under the U.S. Constitution, move the capital to, say, Honolulu, or maybe Bermuda, and let 'em all cry.
I'm talkin' about:
The U.K. (Four states: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland)
They get: a written Constitution and a reason for the Royal Navy to rule the seas again. Also, they can once and for all give a great big juicy raspberry to the European Union that all true Britons have been longing to give. The Argentinians can also forget about the Falkland Islands. They'd be sovereign U.S. territory, and don't you ever, ever forget it.
Canada (Nine states: BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland & Labrador, plus the Northern Territories)
They get: Rid of Quebec, which becomes an independent country (at last!) that can then seek to out-France France, as is their dream. The Anglophone provinces can then start learning Spanish, like the rest of us.
Australia (6 states--Western Australia, South Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania, and Queensland, with the Northern Territory)
They get: lots more opportunities to be the weird loveable Aussies we all know and, well, love. Plus they get to be U.S. Marines and SEALS and fun stuff like that. No worries, mate!
the U.S. (Go ahead and make Puerto Rico a State, so 51 states)
We get: Twenty more states, and become the first truly global state since the old British Empire. If we move the capital, then Maryland gets Washington back. (Sorry, Maryland.)
Come to think of it, maybe the new nation's capital should be at Alice Springs, or maybe even right under Uluru. That would have serious coolness factor. Plus it might be far enough away from everyone that they'll finally leave us alone.
Nahhhh....
By , at
Wed Sep 19, 11:45:00 PM:
I understand the Canadian's might not be excited to be part of another country, but I for one would be very happy if British Columbia or Alberta wanted to give us a call.
andrewdb
By Freddy Hill, at
Thu Sep 20, 12:11:00 AM:
The referenced article shows a bias that has been a constant of American expansionism: If America is to expand it must be by acquiring "Spanish" territory.
I agree with those who suggest the non-Spanish caribbean as a logical area of expansion, even before Puerto Rico and Cuba. The Caymans, Grenada, even Jamaica.
Cuba is too much of a nation to be part of another nation. A friend, yes. A state, no.
The article also largely ignores America's historic trend: Western Expansion. After Alaska and Hawaii, what about the Pacific Islands which are already American possessions? What about Guam, What about the Philippines, which proved to be, since the Spanish-American War, and particularly during WWII much more pro-American that Cuba ever was or will ever be?
I realize that references to the "European Union" are just a device to sell the thesis of the article. In reality I think that Americans would be well-advised to seek a "more perfect union", and therefore avoid the European model.
By , at
Thu Sep 20, 12:13:00 AM:
Good to see that mindless blather is alive and well on the Intertubes.
By Hucbald, at
Thu Sep 20, 12:21:00 AM:
I was born in Newfoundland to US citizen parents and Newfies kick ass, so I'm all for that.
I lived in Panama as a kid (Dad was a USAF pilot, and we were stationed at Howard AFB), and getting Panama "back" would make up for Carter's idiocy in giving up the Canal Zone, so I'm for that one too.
Convincing Puerto Ricans to pay taxes just for the ability to vote in US elections would be a hard sell, as they get all the benifits with none of the expense now, and a huge percentage of PR's population is on some form of public assistance or other. Just don't see it happening.
I've been to all of the US territories in the Pacific except for American Samoa, and they are a lot like Puerto Rico Light. The CNMI (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), which includes Saipan, Tinian, and Rota would be a fantastic add though, as diving in the lagoons with all of the sunken WW II wreckage is just speck-feaking-tacular.
Chuuk, Phonapey, and Majaro are also sublime, but they are really and truly third-world in terms of evolution.
Marshall Islands? Not much there, so I don't care either way. Kwajaline is already a US military installation though. Very empoverished!
Personally, I'd like the US to get Baja so I can be a US citizen at home in Cabo!
By , at
Thu Sep 20, 12:34:00 AM:
I recall reading in history class that at the time of the Gadsden Purchase the US originally wanted to buy Baja California too.
By , at
Thu Sep 20, 01:05:00 AM:
The US adminstered the, now, Dominican Republic in the early 1900s. Their economy and population grew significantly and 'they' asked to be a state but we declined. So I recall reading.
By , at
Thu Sep 20, 01:13:00 AM:
50 is a nice round number and as the liberal whine that we stole part of this from mexico but WERE BEING INVADED SO THE COWBOY AND INDIAN WILL STAND TOGETHER TO BEAT OFF THIS INVASION
By , at
Thu Sep 20, 02:24:00 AM:
While I certainly enjoy entertaining the idea, I have doubts as to how likely any of it is.
With regards to Canada - I would certainly welcome new states from Canada, but I sincerely doubt that many Canadians would want to give up on Canada. These things change, and I could always be caught by surprise.
I also doubt that much of Mexico wishes to join the United States. On this, I am less knowledgeable, though.
Counter-balancing new "blue" state members with a split of Texas is very unlikely, barring a serious pending disaster. Texas likes being Texas.
D.C. should not, in my opinion become a state. The reasons for keeping the seat of the Federal government not in any State were sound at the time, and I have not yet seen an indication that they have stopped being sound.
As far as I am concerned, Puerto Rico is welcome to be a state anytime. It's overdue in my opinion.
The speculation regarding Cuba seems fanciful. At the same time, the situation is so complex and subject to so many uncertainties that, while I am dubious, this one seems the most likely.
By , at
Thu Sep 20, 02:28:00 AM:
I don't know if I need more states, but -- as a Californian -- I fly a 31-star flag in front of my home.
By , at
Thu Sep 20, 03:31:00 AM:
Aren't 100 senators more than enough?
Would we really need more congress critters?
By , at
Thu Sep 20, 07:15:00 AM:
The broader point is that states are and remain sovereigns. They have ceded through membership in the union some measure of their sovereighnity, but they are still sovereigns. That is why we have an Eleventh Amendment,and it is why you still cannot sue a state without its consent (sovereign immunity stems from the old truism that the kind can do no wrong), But for the union, however, you would need a passport to drive from Illinois to Wisconsin or Minnesota to South Dakota, and just think how bizarre that would be,
By Ray, at
Thu Sep 20, 09:28:00 AM:
Dreams of imperial glory aside, I can see some very good reasons for this kind of expansion.
The EU is busy forcing all the children to play by uniform labor, environmental, copyright, immigration, etc. standards (not yet, but they're clearly moving that way). This will, when the business of integration is done, give them a huge, compatible, highly mobile work force. China's not integrating with anybody, but they're clearly training up a humongous modern work force too. Historically, that's been America's strength -- and why we climbed the world standings from 20th to 1st in about a generation, a century ago.
I'm not saying NAFTA can't do it on its own, but it might be easier to just admit new states as the opportunity arises than to get Congress to pass every finicky piece of legislation, wait for the State Departmnt and the US Trade Representative to negotiate terms, and wait for the other side's legislative to agree. For every trading partner. While all the antitrade types come out of the closet and talk about foreigners stealing American jobs.
That said, I don't see many prospects, really.
Unless something goes badly wrong in Mexico, however, I don't see us integrating Mexican states. They have too well-defined a sense of national identity. Ditto for the Canadians -- unless Canada breaks up, in which case something might be negotiable, because, well, it would clearly not be to America's advantage to have to negotiate with every successor state over every little trade issue, so it'd be easier to offer what's left statehood.
Cuba is a pipe dream; too many variables, and they're guaranteed to be an economic wreck worse than East Germany was in 1989. The west Pacific doesn't really have the population or the unity to petition for statehood; the Phillipines went their own way a long time ago. Puerto Rico is really the only likely this side of 2030, I think.
By Long_Bow, at
Thu Sep 20, 10:38:00 AM:
By , at
Thu Sep 20, 11:29:00 AM:
I've been preaching the acquisition of Western Canada and parts of Mexico for years. Since they are our two largest suppliers of "foreign" oil, with the stroke of a pen we could achieve the goal of energy independence.
By Hope Muntz, at
Thu Sep 20, 02:44:00 PM:
This is actually something I've thought a lot about since I was a small kid, I guess because I was always living in foreign countries, and it seemed natural for anyplace our military was protecting (like the UK and Germany) to someday want to belong to some kind of union with us. Also back then the EU was pretty much still just a 'common market', and ppl weren't so crazed with anti-Americanism. So I used to fall asleep at night thinking about new maps of the US. Yeah I know--weird.
Anyways, nowadays I pretty much see zero chance of this happening, so I agree with all the commenters above who give reasons why it won't happen in particular cases, such as Alberta or PR. It will never happen anywhere anytime soon. Why? The answer is simple--and was the real reason for our stasis in adding new states, not the cold war stuff cited in Esquire: the real reason is that for all intents and purposes, half the world already is part of the US. Globalism has caused it, plus our continued military umbrella overseas. What's the point in joining a club if you already get all the benefits for free? Just like the Canadian guy said--why should Alberta and the rest of the western Canadian provinces even bother, since we already provide them with markets, free TV, and military protection? The old idea of lower taxes here is a laugh, too--we Americans pay almost as much as Scandinavians in taxes (when piggy-back state and local ones are added), but the only thing we get for our money is a military--Swedes and Canadians get two months of paid vacation, free health care (of a sort), and free day-care. So for a few percentage points, why bother? Anyone who wants to can immigrate anyway, since their governments are hot to get rid of them before they're old and replace them with cheap immigrants.
So ATM there is absolutely zero incentive for any wealthy nation or province to petition us to join--and even less for us to want to add poor ones (since half their populations are already entering illegally anyway.) That could change in a hurry, if several things happen:
1. The end of NAFTA and the 'globalism' experiment. Think it could never happen? Guess again. If the West enters a real recession, the Chinese economy will collapse. If that happens China will launch some new military adventure, likely against Taiwan, and that will be the end of our cheap sneakers and vitamins. CHina is the engine of 'globalism'.
2. A new isolationism after Iraq. With the troops home in 2008--or in 2012, whatever--most Americans, both Blue and Red will say goodbye to new wars. There will be terrific pressure to pull back from bases and commitments overseas, especially in Europe. Already our Navy is half the size it was in 1990. Sooner or later there will be a fence--get over it. If we don't build it, our newest citizens will. Nobody can live in a house with a yard full of squatters.
3. Restricting immigration. At some point in the near future, immigration will begin to be restricted (as it has been at times throughout our history) to certain ethnic groups and nations, maybe even to certain occupations. When this happens the countries that become buffer zones or staging areas for immigration--as the Philipines once were--will entertain fantasies of statehood, especially if they are hit harder than us by economic recession.
So if you're young like me--yeah, you may see some new states in your lifetime, but they might not be any of those mentioned above: Vladivostok, Gdansk, or Singapore might be the first 'mice' to roar. But if you're older, forget about it. Not gonna happen.
By , at
Thu Sep 20, 03:09:00 PM:
I would prefer to reduce the number. Canada, can you help us here? Maybe trade? Our cut and run states that want socialized medicine as well. Please?
SEW
By , at
Thu Sep 20, 05:15:00 PM:
Actually, with Mexico, it's the other way around. They're busy colonizing the US :)
By mikentexas, at
Fri Sep 21, 12:10:00 PM:
I am more in favor of dumping some states - Massachusetts, Vermont, etc.
I'd never want Puerto Rico as a state. Too many welfare bums as it is.
