The coming obsolescence of North American borders
United States and Canada might be at crossroads as political entities
In February 1994 Robert D. Kaplan, foreign affairs specialist and correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly wrote an essay titled The Coming Anarchy in which he stated:
“ Indeed, it is not clear that the United States will survive the next century exactly in its present form. Because America is a multi ethnic society, the nation-state has always been more fragile here than it is in more homogeneous societies like Germany and Japan. (…)
This and many other factors will make the United States less of a nation than it is today, even as it gains territory following the peaceful dissolution of Canada. Quebec, based on the bedrock of Roman Catholicism and Francophone ethnicity, could yet turn out to be North America’s most cohesive and crime-free nation-state. (…)
“Patriotism” will become increasingly regional as people in Alberta and Montana discover that they have far more in common with each other than they do with Ottawa or Washington.”
Robert D. Kaplan, The Coming Anarchy, 1994
You might think that Kaplan’s assertions were an hyperbolic forecast of the political landscape to come in North America as none of its political prophecy materialized so far; Quebec rejected independence in a referendum a year later in 1995 and the United States have survived harsher political turmoil in their past, are still one of the strongest nations economically and a prominent superpower on the world stage.
True enough but I would encourage the reader to think again. Kaplan’s assessment must be taken in a longer time scale. He is a seasoned foreign affairs specialist that extensively traveled the world, and with this particular essay, he was setting the table for the decades and the century ahead, not making short term predictions for the immediate years following his article for The Atlantic. His focus remains on long term trends.
When observing demographic, political and societal trends, one must elevate its vision to look further (both in the past and the future), try to gain an helicopter view on any situation and extract the essence of historical patterns. For those who have read most of my work so far will recognize the angle I continuously strive to take when trying to make sense of current events.
If the study of history is to be useful in analyzing and forecasting the turns our societies are likely to take, it must be studied with a wide angle, not a narrow one. Just like making climate projections based only on a couple of decades of data makes no scientific sense, the same applies when interpreting the evolution of societal trends.
Political tug of war
For all the talks in recent decades on the necessity to establish a supra-national political entity in order to curtail world issues and 21st century problems such as terrorism, climate change, tax heavens, income inequality and the like, the political elites from western democracies, pressuring their populations to create such mega structures, have triggered and fomented among them grassroots oppositions as a side effect.
Centralizing federal governments around the western world have seen their authority challenged in recent decades and more of the same will most likely occur in the 2020’s and beyond (at least until a new sustainable political realignment occurs) with a strong anchor in historical regionalism.
On the surface, the political power of federations looks strong, fueled by large bureaucratic structures attending G20 summits or COP conferences for climate action, but behind this facade aided by mainstream media coverage, their power is wavering and gradually losing ground in large pockets of their respective populations.
The European union already went through Brexit in 2020 following a referendum in the UK in 2016, the French state faced mass protests in 2018 from the Gilets Jaunes and are about to witness a presidential election like no other in 2022 with the rise of overtly nationalist Eric Zemmour. A former journalist and essayist that some might be tempted to call the Victor Orban of France for his particularly strong stance on immigration and being openly against EU interference in national domains.
Among multiple other political tensions on the old continent, we must not forget the still active nationalist movements in Scotland and Catalunya regardless of recent failed referenda on independence. In any event, in a future scenario without France nor the UK in the mix, the European Union would not stand long term with the same structure as today.
Closer to home in North America, besides the traditional push back from Québec towards the Canadian federal government (currently governed by an “autonomist” party in the Coalition Avenir Québec with antagonistic cultural and linguistic positions) and Texas (who regularly had pockets of militants keeping alive the dream of an independent state), both countries are witnessing the rise of new secessionists.
Contemporary secessionists
In the midst of this new crisis era, North America is observing a resurgence of these grassroots movements promoting peaceful secession from federal entities. Many regions / states / provinces are at odds with the political vision promoted in the capital.
Multiple examples already abound in the US and Canada:
Alberta: Wexit
Quebec: Parti Québécois
Texas: Texas Nationalist Movement
New Hampshire: Free State Project
West coast states: Cascadia
California: Calexit
Even if most of these movements are fairly marginal at the moment, the explosive political context and the current tensions experienced in multiple regions of the continent constitute the perfect recipe for a possible reshaping of the political landscape in the decades ahead.
Central governments are gradually loosing credibility to the eyes of many, especially the citizens living outside large urban areas (more on this in the last part of this article).
A quote from a book that was too easily cast aside back in the 1990’s, but that has gained in popularity since as its prophetic forecast of the current crisis era is unfolding before our eyes, sheds some light on the current cycle we are living through. It comes from The Fourth Turning by William Strauss and Neil Howe; two historians that focused heavily on the study of generations for decades and who published a history book like no other in 1997.
A book that did not obtain the praise it deserved at the time, especially from the academic world, as most historians will not approach a cyclical view of history with a ten foot pole as they focus on a linear evolution of world events. The Fourth Turning premise is perceived as a predestined vision of the world where “free will” does not constitute an acting force, thus not taken seriously by many thinkers. This cyclical paradigm, though being the primary analytical lens for most of civilized human history, has been gradually disregarded in the study of history since the enlightenment years.
In any case, in anticipation of the next crisis era to unfold roughly between the years 2005-2025, the authors wrote the following in 1997:
“ The prospect for great civic achievement - or disintegration - will be high. New secessionist movements could spring from nowhere and achieve their ends with surprising speed. Even if the nation stays together, its geography could be fundamentally changed, its party structure altered, its Constitution and Bill of Rights amended beyond recognition.
History offers even more sobering warnings: armed confrontation usually occurs around the climax of Crisis.”
William Strauss and Neil Howe, The Fourth Turning, 1997
The basic premise argued in The Fourth Turning goes as follows:
History unfolds in a cyclical pattern similar to the seasons in a year
Every saeculum (siècle, century) - or the equivalent length of a human life (around 80-90 years) - a new cycle begins as the oldest cohort in the population passes away thus bringing no living memory of the last crisis.
The Anglo-American world has witnessed a crisis every saeculum stretching back many centuries (WWII - Civil War - American Revolution - etc.)
The four phases (or turnings) of a saeculum are:
High (spring) - “upbeat era of strengthening institutions”
Awakening (summer) - “passionate era of spiritual upheaval”
Unraveling (autumn) - “downcast era of strengthening individualism”
Crisis (winter) - “decisive era of secular upheaval; replacement of the old civic order”
Each generation born in different phases of the cycle will develop a group archetype with common characteristics stemming from the dominant societal mood of their early years. These generations will thus impact society differently with the passing of time as they progress through life.
The current cycle corresponds to:
High = American High (1946-1964)
Awakening = Consciousness Revolution (1964-1984)
Unraveling = Culture Wars (1984-2008)
Crisis = Millennial Crisis (2008-2026 ??)
“History creates generations, generations create history”
The years that followed the financial crisis of 2008 sure provided numerous exhibits of the next crisis era Strauss and Howe were predicting: increased political polarization, realignment of old fault lines among parties, riots in many US cities, states rights being actively defended by several governors, internal migrations between blue and red states, activist influenced political parties demanding extreme reform of the constitution, parts of civil society openly discussing a possible secession, a demand for collective action, and so on.
Civic change is accelerating and a new resolution must be achieved before this crisis ends. What the definitive outcome will be is yet to be seen.
My intention is to dig deeper into this concept of history cycles in future pieces of The Nomad Historian but in the meantime, and for a better understanding of The Fourth Turning concept argued in this book, please refer to The Generation Report YouTube page below as Paul Zimmy Finn, creator of this series, translated into a video podcast form the essence of Strauss’s and Howe’s arguments (and more).
Misleading borders
We might not know exactly what our political future will look like but if the past is any guide, we know the following.
When examining a political map of the world today, we see color coded areas and boundaries delimiting the current limits of countries (or states and provinces) as if it will always be this way. In reality, it only reflects to some extent the state of the last political settlement negotiated peacefully or through war. Even within this superficial political stability, cultural, social and economic forces keep challenging this status quo.
Our map seems static in a way but political realities are much more dynamic in reality. Influences will evolve over time depending on the evolution of demography, power struggle, local customs, historical occupation of the land and cultural assimilation between neighbors. (For more on the optical illusion of borders, I highly recommend The Ends of the Earth, another classic by Robert D. Kaplan)
Large federations around the western world, including the bureaucratic European Union, has been increasingly facing push back from smaller political entities fighting against the centralizing mega political structures.
Even with the push for increased centralization to address issues such as climate policies, the paradox of the 21st century era is that federal government’s historical mandates will be regarded as obsolete in a relatively peaceful digital age. The infrastructure of new technologies can either be managed by lower levels of government (example: optical fiber transmission) or by the private sector (example: Starlink - broadband satellite internet) among other examples.
We look at North America on a map and we inevitably see the three big countries as an unchanging state of politics. Canada, USA and Mexico are there to stay we believe. However, when we look back at the map of 1700, 1800, 1900 and 2000, we see a constant evolution of the spheres of influence.
Unless you espouse Fukuyama’s theory of the End of history, the current map is destined and more than likely to move again in the future, just like it did since the 1700’s (see above). Political entities are rarely ossified eternally so borders most likely will shift again. There is no apparent reason it will be otherwise, quite the contrary.
To fully understand the underpinnings of this dynamic, the map must be analyzed beyond the regular 2-dimension. Multiple layers of variables will ultimately influence the fate of countries and political entities.
In short, since the tendency over the centuries has been an increasing number of nation-states, what makes us think that we are heading in the opposite direction ?
The nation state is dead ?
Since my university years in the late 90’s, I have been hearing multiple variations of this statement but am still waiting to see it developed in the real world. If anything, the notion of smaller scale governance is gaining traction. When attending an undergraduate seminar on nations and nationalism at the time, most of my peers were foreseeing the eventual demise of small nation-states.
Recent decades have seen political power rising from even smaller levels of government. Another trend picking up speed in this increasingly interconnected world is the concentration of economic and social activity in big cities all linked together with a highly educated and mobile workforce. Multinational corporations have in effect "colonized” these urban centers creating hubs of production, services and wealth.
Before long, with this shift in the economy, the centralization in wealth generation, the attractiveness of cities to immigrants, this pole shifting will eventually have a larger effect in the political realm. It already has. From one election cycle to the next, the cultural divide between large urban centers and the surrounding regions in the countryside grows larger.
The map below of the 2020 federal election results in Canada shows that the Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver metropolitan areas essentially gave the majority of seats to the Liberal Party because of the concentration of population and its electoral system. Therefore essentially leaving the remaining ridings powerless in influencing the direction of the country.
Long term, this trend will not sit well with the citizens outside big cities.
The 2020-30’s might also bring into the mix a confrontation between a technocratic elite, highly mobile and educated workforce concentrated in cities that is open to a larger bureaucratic supra-national government vs a more disenfranchised citizenry living outside of metropolitan areas feeling alienated by a far away political power that does not bring any added value to its daily life.
No one has a crystal ball but in the end, many citizens might feel more confortable with a smaller and closer governing body.
In short, the current times are ripe for major changes and we just might be in for a heck of a ride.
I leave you with this quote from Colin Woodard:
“ Will the political map of the continent in the year 2100 look the same as it did in 1900 or 2000 ? Will it still be divided into three enormous political federations, or will it have morphed into something else; a Balkanized collection of nation-states along the lines of twentieth-century Europe; a loose E.U.-style confederation of sovereign nation-states stretching from Monterrey, Mexico to the Canadian Arctic;…
… given the challenges facing the United States, Mexico, and, to a lesser extent, Canada, to assume the continent’s political boundaries will remain as they were in 2010 seems as far fetched as any of these other scenarios.”
Colin Woodard, American Nations, 2011
The coming obsolescence of North American borders
Capitalism itself is responsible both for the progressive meaningless of national-state boundaries and also the subjective, political retrenchment around those same boundaries. If 'secessionist' movements have gained 'traction' since the heyday of neoliberalism, that's because the nation-state as a unit can't keep pace with the globalization of capital itself. But while some national projects have given space to such feelings (Brexit, Trump, Hungary/Poland's EU feuds, Nicaragua's withdrawal from the OAS, El Salvador's endorsement of Bitcoin, etc.), others have reacted against it (Biden, Trudeau vis-a-vis the Truckers, etc.). Ultimately the same basis for the one is the basis for the other, and this self-contradiction will continue until it either is transcended or stagnates.
Great article. I agree that this must be seen in a long term process…
People who dismiss these secession movements are either dreaming or do not know history at all. I have witnessed articles saying “ Quebec sovereignty is dead “ or “ Texas independence is not feasible” yet these areas are still having independence movements. Quebec for instance only votes for a party that is about the Quebecois and Texas has now filed a referendum bill for independence. It will be quite interesting to see what happens.