... to go back 2500 years. The contradiction between Peter Singer and Tony Judt give us plenty to discuss for the 21st century.

@ debendevan

I argued for increased 'state rights', but foreign and defense policies should definitely remain a rare federal responsibility.   Texas is growing rapidly in absolute terms, but not in relative (per capita) terms, so it is NOT a "wealthy bit" of the USA.  "Transfer payments to other regions" (except in cases of natural disasters) is/are a bad idea.  It undermines responsible behavior at state government level, and it is exactly what the Obama Administration is currently trying to do with selective waivers and selective loans (designed to 'rescue' deep-blue irresponsible state governments in California, New York, and Illinois).

@  mpresley

1)  American "unity" (organic or otherwise) has never been based on ethnicity, but on shared ideals and ideas.   You are right in stating that the contemporary Democratic party is largely the party of "statists" and also pursues a destructive/balkanising agenda of ethnic 'identity politics', particularly vis-a-vis blacks and hispanics.   I do NOT think that the Republican Party should join them in pursuing an "hispanic agenda", but rather should emphasize 'rule of law' and common American ideals.   I do not share your pessimism with regard to other ethnicities in America.  The problem resides not in ethnic diversity but rather in the wrong (multiculti) policies being pursued.  We agree on the need (basic goal) for cultural unity, including a common language, but disagree on the ability of people to assimilate (given the 'right' policies).  I do agree with you that there are good reasons for concern today, but we disagree on the 'causes' of the problem.

2)  My contention that a break-up of the US would be a disaster for the world, does NOT presuppose that it is "the job" of the US to stand up to totalitarian states.   It was simply an opinion expressed from a "world perspective".  In fact, in the same paragraph I expressed the "hope" that a return to increased 'state rights' in the US would strengthen the (current) "isolationist trend" in the US.   Whether, when, and where, the US should oppose totalitarians, should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and guided by an appropriate assessment of its own long-term interest rather than by short-term expediency.  I do not believe in nation-building efforts in distant lands, but I also do not believe that the US is "broke" in any meaningful economic sense.  The US is not the same as the US (federal) Government.  But, I am convinced that the mere presence or existence of the US - with its current size and military might - acts as the sole major deterrent to totalitarians in the world. 

@debendaven,

I think the rot i.e., the collapse of ethical and moral standards inevitably leads to overextension, whether it's on a personal, community, national, or international level. Will the overextension of the US now inevitably lead to the collapse of the US as an entity, a nation state?  I don't know, my point simply was that, if we do, that will be the major impetus of our collapse as it was in the Soviet case.

@LVB: That is not the exact map I was thinking of (the one I recall having seen had, for example, names for each of the fantasy successor states superimposed on the territory). But for purposes of discussion certainly suffices. Lew Rockwell's map captures some of the logical fault lines I had in mind.

That said, @ Capodistrias, I would be interested in hearing your views on what brings down the U.S. as an entity. My personal view is that the relationship between Spain and the Low Countries at the end of the 16th century is a more apt scenario (cf Spain declared bankruptcy in 1575; was over-extended militarily; lost those parts of the empire most able to support themselves and impoverished the rest).

Still, @marcfrans, like you, I believe that the collapse of the United States would be a disaster for many (myself included). But I feel we are headed on that trajectory. But who knows, perhaps that collapse is decades or (even) centuries off instead of years? Either way, the two party system masks geographic tensions that while not overt, are likely to exert stronger centrifugal pressures as the Federal Government, crippled by immense debt, loses the ability to either enforce federal unity through might (e.g., unable to pay border troops etc.) while being resented by the wealthier bits (e.g., Texas, et.al.) for transfer payments to other regions.    

1) In my opinion there is no center-versus-regions split in the US.  There is, however, a heigthened ideological split at the (federal) center. One aspect of that split relates to the perennial question of 'state rights'.  One can certainly strive for a clearer delineation and limitation of federal competencies and for a concomitant rise in state rights and competencies.  This is unlike Belgium, where the split is regional/cultural and where ideological differences between both regions are a matter of degree and not subtantial.  A Tea Party phenomenon is as unthinkable in Flanders as it surely is in Wallonia. 

2)  Federal elections over recent decades in the US have led to much talk about red and blue states, but the intensity of that color configuration is not comparable to earlier regional splits at the time of the civil war in the 19th century nor during the so-called civil rights era in the 20th century.  Recent elections suggest that the number of 'purple' states is growing and that the red/blue designation is not as permanent as was thought earlier. Also, it is clear that candidates for state-wide (Executive and Legislative) offices of both parties can win in virtually all 50 states.  The de facto 2-party system in the US has several benefits, one of which is that it helps preserve national unity.  

3)  A break-up of the US would be a calamity from a geopolitical world perspective, because no other nation on earth would be capable of standing up to expanding totalitarian states and/or ideologies.    The 20th century should have thought that lesson to all actual or aspiring 'democrats'.  And the notion that totalitarian states and ideologies would lie behind us in history, is extremely naive and a-historical, although it remains uncertain what new concrete forms they will take in the future.   China and a muslim khalifate-of -sorts are obvious candidates today, but certainly do not exhaust the possibilities.  None of this precludes a healthy debate within the US between 'interventionists' and 'isolationists'.  I also believe and hope that a return to increased 'state rights' (at the expense of the federal center where rights/competencies should be specifically 'enumerated'), in line with the original Constitution, would strengthen the isolationist trend.  But, one should never forget that - when it really counts - size does matter.  Indeed, in human affairs, size often is a prerequisite for developing a necessary backbone.            

The MAP:

There were people who spoke of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and some even predicted it, but they weren't taken seriously. The US will collapse because of internal rot, which is the same thing that really brought down the ussr. And rot is not specific to any political ideology or party.

For those anti-American groupies in Europe, Russia, China and the Islamic world, don't take too much comfort from such a prospect because you are as likely to experience consequences as unpleasant as Americans, perhaps even more so.

@mpresly Nice review. I think the beginning 9in the book) survey of failed and created states is quite interesting. A subject I have not seen discussed before. That alone makes the book worthwhile. The further, dispassionate and reasoned analysis of how belgium could be dismantled is quite good. I was fortunate to secure a copy from a friend. But this book should be actively marketed and sent to all major media outlets.

@Souviens - I agree on the issue of Islamic immigrants having so little in common with Flemings or walloons. That is why I believe one solution that might actually beacceptable to all sides of the political spectrum would be for Belgium to offer the 'right of return' (as Israel and 30 other states do) for descendants of emigrants. More than 1 million Americans, as well as hundreds of thousands of Brits, Canadians, and Aussies could add a new dimension to this debate (cf my http://flemishamerican.blogspot.com/2009/06/flanders-birthright-and-right-of-return.html ).

@TomF.Bertonneau - the Balkanization of America is inevitable but so long as there is a perceived external threat greater than the internal contradictions I believe the center will hold. A few years back an excellent map by some American fellow showed (I think) 12 likely successor states. It would be great if another alert reader could post the link. Certainly one can draw loose but interesting parallels to today's EU. 

From Dr Bertonneau:

I hope that the book by Gerolf Annemans and Steven Utsi reaches a large audience.

You are correct that the book is very strong and deserves wide publicity. I do not mean to minimize its usefulness to Belgians, but all the author's write about is applicable to the greater Europe, and America.

I believe that the USA needs to devolve.

The question of American devolution, or balkanization into more congruent constituent parts deserves serious thinking. At this time, however, most Americans would never entertain the idea simply because they have no conception of what form it could take. Also, without the ability to conscript taxes from a minority of wage earners who are now spread across a sizable geographic land mass, the nation as it exists today could not survive. Therefore, the center would never allow it as it would mean its demise; in any case I do not think such a thing could ever manifest peacefully. At the same time, there is no doubt that the current state of affairs is completely unrepresentative—at least unrepresentative of those who pay the bills.

I believe we agree that, at least at the national level, representation is lost, although the myth is more or less maintained every four years. Instead of representation, an unelected bureaucracy continues to informally legislate and mandate both individual and corporate behaviors.

I do not doubt that de facto ethnic self-segregation will increase as mostly violent and marginally civilized Third Worlders congregate within cities, while whites and others seeking the safety of morality and civilization migrate outward into localized communities. It is already happening, but expect increasing demographic velocity. Unfortunately, the center realizes it is happening, and fights it all the way.

The big x-factor is the economy. As the currency becomes more debased, and as the private sector economy continues to deteriorate, those now supported by transfer welfare payments will become ever more hostile as the threat to discontinue their subsidies becomes a reality. In order to forestall it, the center will have no choice but to continue to debase the currency, essentially wiping out the middle class. Once that happens, a more general violence will likely occur involving more than the historical underclass.

From Souviens:

...we should be replaced by immigrants who share nothing in common with us...

If I move to China can I become Chinese? If I move to Nigeria, am I a Nigerian? No one seriously believes such a thing possible. At least in any authentic sense. But then why is it that a Nigerian can move to England and become English. Or move to America and automatically become an American? The English and the European countries should know better. America, however, is viewed by most as a proposition nation, which is really no nation at all. If it is true, then the seeds for American disintegration were planted at the same time the proposition was decided upon.

As long as the birthrate of muslims in Europe remains the same, attempts at restructuring it on cultural lines will fail. Even as someone only marginally educated about politics, it seems clear that western European countries may not even remain in sixty years let alone sucessfully devolve.

However, the increased social coherence acheived by Flanders and Wallonia becoming separate nations may diminish foreign influence. Let international lawmakers shrink to their original purposes, to maintain peace, which they undermine when they dictate to us how to think and what to say, that we should be replaced by immigrants who share nothing in common with us...

I hope that the book by Gerolf Annemans and Steven Utsi reaches a large audience.  The national devolution of Belgium – which in effect would mean independence for Flanders – would have implications well beyond Europe, reaching into the United States.  I have only just finished writing an article on H. G. Wells, one of whose prejudices was that the exclusive direction of long-term political planning was towards trans-national agglomerations and a world-state.  However, Belgian devolution, quite as planned as anything Wells ever imagined, would be in the opposite direction, back to a manageable type of ethnic republic.  Thirty years ago there was much talk of devolution in the United Kingdom, with Scotland in particular looking as though it might assert real sovereignty.  The impetus for such an outcome seems to have faded, but an independent Flanders might well re-stimulate interest in it and perhaps also, across the Atlantic, in an independent Quebec.  I believe that the USA needs to devolve.  A so-called republic of 300,000,000 is a contradiction in terms.