The Glue of Democratic Empires

October 17, 1777, the British surrender at Saratoga (Revolutionary War: 1775-1783)

Why did American colonists fight the British Empire? The laws and taxes colonists were subject to were far fewer and less draconian than those in the America of the twenty-first century. Was it truly for the old battle cry, "No taxation without representation?" If the British Empire gave American colonists a representative to vote for and/or cut taxes, could war have been avoided? Or, did colonists want something more?

The English posterity that migrated to America, and reared generations thereafter, were of a different stock, a perhaps more rebellious and adventuresome sort. The English of American colonies no longer considered themselves part of the English people of the British Empire. If they had, perhaps a peaceful compromise could've been worked out.

As it was, the conflict we call the "Revolutionary War" consisted of a king who wanted to rule over a separate people and a separate people that wanted to govern themselves. Whether the United States of today became a republic or any other type of government, perhaps with George Washington as their new king, was not the catalyst for revolution. If it was, the details of the United States government would've been worked out prior to shots fired in the revolution. The cherished Federalist Papers, in which the type of government for America was debated, came after the 1775 "first shot" of the war [*1]. The decision for conflict was already made. Any objections to British rule based in political philosophy were a post-hoc justification.

America in the late 18th century became new nation. Some Americans undoubtedly wanted the British Empire to suppress rebellion within America and continue to live under the comfort and security of British rule. But there weren't enough. If there were, the American colonists would've turned in traitors to the British Empire often enough to suppress any rebellions.

Does the formation of a new nation always precede the formation of a new government? The early 2010s featured a social experiment in Europe, as migrants from the Middle East and Africa filled European countries and established their own neighborhoods, many with what we call "No Go" zones with which the communities therein police themselves, unmolested by their European authorities (except for the welfare and housing afforded to them of course).

The migrants in Europe don't petition for formally-recognized sovereignty within these European cities, because they are dependent upon the benefits and housing afforded to them. If European countries cut off all welfare and housing, what would happen? If a community pays no regard to the laws of a jurisdiction and doesn't pay taxes to it, isn't this community already its own government?

The colonial Americans were English posterity and inheritors of English culture. The European migrants come from radically different nations with radically different cultural backgrounds. Since Americans eventually formed their own country, why wouldn't the migrants to Europe eventually do the same? What stops them?

We touch on the glue that holds a multi-national representative democracy together. Money. The British Empire didn't financially incentivize American colonists en masse with cash for their allegiance. Modern democracies do, since politicians need votes. In a more materially-focused culture, the wealthy work within the political structure imposed on them to ensure their material luxuries are sustained (as much of it comes from government contracts). The poor support that structure due to the benefits they receive (e.g., $8,000/year in earned-income tax credits for larger families with low income). Why would different people of differing nations, cultures, languages, and other kinds of background give up the benefits of living within the jurisdiction paying them? Why bite the hand that feeds?

If the British Empire paid earned-income tax credits to American colonists, would the American rebellion have been as successful? Perhaps it still would have, as the nuclear family was more common then. But America now leads the world in single-parent households at 23% (compare with Uganda at 10% and Mexico at 7%) [*2]. If 23% of colonial households were single-parent and the British Empire provided a social safety net of cash benefits and housing, would the American rebellion have been successful?

America of the twenty-first century is a far more diverse place (as leftists in the media constantly celebrate) culturally, racially, and ideologically than the American colonies were. More diverse societies are lower-trust societies. A 2007 study by Robert Putnam revealed [*3]:

In areas of greater diversity, [the study's] respondents demonstrate:
• Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
• Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in their own influence.
• Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
• Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
• Less likelihood of working on a community project.
• Lower likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
• Fewer close friends and confidants.
• Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
• More time spent watching television and more agreement that ‘television is my most important form of entertainment’.

Revolutions are generally enacted by a small group but are still dependent on community support. Trust in communities degrades with diversity. Coordinated action becomes far less likely without a strong sense of community. Couple that with the material benefits doled out by the current United States government, and is it any wonder the America of the twenty-first century is far less free than the colonists of the British Empire yet fails to coordinate into sovereign political units?

What makes an empire? Does it need an emperor? Who was the emperor of the Athenian direct democracy? Are all dictatorships empires? What more is needed?

The easiest definition of empire: the control of one nation over another or others. If a dictator rules over his own people, we wouldn't call that an empire. A dictator ruling over another people, however, crosses the line into empire. A democracy ruling over another people becomes an empire as well. The more control that is had, the stronger the empire; the lesser the control, the weaker the empire.

If a government gives the people it rules over a vote, does that negate empire? Imagine if the whole world were one democracy. Even if your city had some local control, what impact would your community's vote have on the world government controlling you? What if we had a galactic democracy of thousands or millions of worlds? What impact would your vote have on the galactic government?

Nation precedes government. If there are different nations, government ruling over them becomes a pretense. In the modern era, different nations don't split into new governments, and democratic empire is maintained for two reasons: (1) the nations are too inter-mixed with different cultures, races, and ideologies to successfully organize and break apart and (2) the empire buys allegiance with its largesse via lucrative contracts for the wealthy and benefits for the not-wealthy.

The 2020/1 American election(s) and Brexit reveal the post-democratic age we have entered [*4]. The votes of subjects decreasingly matter when it comes to large-scale geo-political issues, like the balance of party power, presidency, or international policy. Control of people's actions instead of votes through soft power and media control is more relevant to order within empires [*5].

As votes no longer need to be purchased and the pretense of our banana republics fades, empires will feel less beholden to buying votes and, instead, rely more on suppressing community through diversity and inclusion (which demonstrably results in exclusion) to maintain power.

Inevitably, the governments we see in 2021 will change, perhaps, and hopefully, in our lifetime. Empires will fall and new ones will rise. But one thing we know: the glue that holds empire together can't last. Just as the law of entropy applies to matter falling into a state of disorder, the law of nations applies to governments ruling beyond their domain.

This begs the question. How long will the jurisdiction we call the "United States" last? When will enough people bore of the bread and circuses buying allegiance? The wealth of democratic empire can demonstrably prolong allegiance. But for how long?

---
FOOTNOTES
[*1] https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text
[*2] https://comparecamp.com/single-parent-statistics/
[*3] https://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/benediktsson2013/files/2013/04/Putnam.pdf
Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 30 – No. 2, 2007, Nordic Political Science Association
[*4] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/planning-for-post-democratic-divided.html
[*5] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-role-of-media-in-post-democratic-era.html