For several centuries the world has usually had two major groups of states and a few minor ones. Of the two major groups, one has been generally regarded, especially in retrospect, as The Good Guys and the other as The Bad Guys. The Good Guys didn’t have to be perfect, just better behaved on average than The Bad Guys, ideally in both domestic and foreign policy. Thus, “better” just means less oppressive to their own folks and less aggressive to the others.
The minor groupings have been smaller and weaker states sorted by common characteristics, be they demographic, geographic, cultural, or economic. These have had to occupy themselves chiefly with keeping both of the bigger gangs at arm’s length. They have often but not always been successful at this.
Each of the big teams has had either one state that was clearly the leader or more than one that shared the leadership, but with occasional squabbles. The Good Guys have more often had the first and the Bad Guys the second, but there have been multiple exceptions on both sides.
The US has had a pretty good run as the Big Kahuna of the Good Guys, but it has been clear for a couple of decades that the slide has begun and is accelerating. Who follows a worn-out Big Kahuna has frequently taken many years to become clear, but I am now prepared to offer my fearless prediction. (It is fearless because I confidently expect to be dead before the next Big Kahuna is fully revealed.)
What are the qualifications to be Big Kahuna of The Good Guys? Remembering that you don’t have to be perfect, just discernibly better than the competition, I propose:
A history of stable and responsible self-government. This implies broad acceptance of the government’s legitimacy and peaceful transfers of formal authority when the rules or strong traditions require such transfers. These conditions are much facilitated if the rules or strong traditions allow citizens to feel that their concerns have been heard and their ideas listened to, even if their arguments don’t prevail in the policy process.
A military that is strong and effective but not looking for a fight. Teddy Roosevelt had this about right, with “speak softly and carry a big stick.” Strength and effectiveness needn’t come exclusively from the Big Kahuna, but can derive from formal alliances and less formal understandings with other states.
Broad social and political acceptance of others in the polity. Minorities of all sorts-- including original populations where such exist--should feel safe and respected. Nobody ever gets this all the way right, but to the extent that it’s the case, social and political upheavals are minimized, allowing the state to focus on actual problems and issues.
Willingness to address past errors and current shortcomings. States, like individuals, screw up sometimes, even egregiously. States that are willing to be accountable for those situations and events help everyone remember that countries consist of human beings and are not invented or protected by omnipotent and inscrutable deities. A populace that is appropriately patriotic but not moronically jingoistic is more likely to uphold all the other above conditions than one that claims infallible divine guidance and protection. There is considerable strength in providing a good example for the other children, even if they’d rather you didn’t.
So, over the next several decades, who will emerge as the Big Kahuna of The Good Guys group?
My money, if I had any, would be on Canada.
In addition to being pretty good on the above criteria, Canada shares with the US the useful advantages of being geographically separated from most of the trouble spots, awash in natural resources, and spacious enough to accommodate new arrivals who bring needed skills and fresh perspectives. A bonus is that Canada’s national anthem is about the country and not the flag, which removes a significant temptation to national idolatry (see “moronically jingoistic,” supra).
Another advantage is the Canadian political system. In the presidential system of the US and others, the president and the legislature are elected separately. This leads often to what for some reason we call “gridlock” when what we mean is “deadlock.” In the parliamentary systems of such as Canada and others, the legislative body appoints the head of the government. The result is that the executive always has a majority in the legislature. This has dangers of its own, but a formal written Constitution and a strong judiciary can help to moderate unfortunate tendencies in the other branches.
Now, I have never heard a Canadian espouse the idea of their taking over, either as a prediction or as an aspiration. That’s okay. Americans have always thought they had a special mission from God, but it was as an example rather than a messiah. They didn’t begin to think they were The Man until the first world war and weren’t firmly convinced until the second.
So instead of Canada becoming the 51st US state, the US might wish to become Canada’s fourth territory. In Canada, provinces are largely self-governing and territories are run by the national government. Thus, if we ever get good at self-government we might eventually become a full-fledged province.
Comments