Re: James Fulford's blog item New Anglosphere Book: "A Genealogy of a Racialized Identity in International Relations"
From: A Young Illinois Reader [Send Him Mail]
I recall attending a lecture given a few years ago by John Bolton (yeah, I know), in which he discussed liberal support for international "norming." He used this term to refer to the use of diplomacy and treaties to tie the hands of the government with respect to domestic policy. International gun control efforts are an example. (See Bolton’s article The Coming War on Sovereignty, Commentary, March 2009.)
It occurs to me that two could play at that game. If we were to somehow elect a patriot government (a very big "if"), we could make the Anglosphere an explicit political and military pact. The foundations for this are already in place through NATO, NORAD, and ANZUS.
In order to make the alliance proof against shifting political and economic winds, signatories could undertake to maintain certain domestic policies, such as immigration limits and official English—hey, we'd love to admit more Mexicans/Pakistanis/Indonesians, but it would degrade the trust of our Anglo-European cousin nations in the long-term integrity of our alliance.
The Anglosphere is real. A Brisbane or Adelaide feels much more "American" than some parts of the US. Since this insight is implicitly understood if not necessarily articulated, we should leverage the tangibility of the Anglosphere in order to force the National Question at home.
After all, neocons like the Special Relationship, and liberals like multilateralism, right?