adam wrote:

finethen wrote:

I think it is important to take (buzzword alert) "the decline of the nation-state" into account as well when looking at the rise of democracy abroad.

but is the nation-state in decline?
European integration has at best stalled and the US has completed moved away from a multilateral approach to global problems under this administration. These may be blips in the overall trend but I wonder if the "decline of the nation-state" is a 90s buzz meme.
The European experiment will I think recover but is arguably the construction of a new super-state not evidence that the nation-state is in decline.

Yes, in name and some other important ways the nation-state remains strong. However, (and allow me to imply American here) in other ways borders have little meaning anymore. The free flow of capitol, goods, people, and ideas is hardly stopped by an imaginary line in the sand. That is why you find massive immigration reform at the top of every politicians hot list at the moment- trying to solve an unsolvable problem keeps the public from panicking about 'loss of culture' and other nonsense.
However, there are 3 things that remain to keep the nation state holding on. Law, idenitification, and security. (As you might guess, these three things intertwine.) Identification is how we maintain (the illusion of) security. Law helps us define who recieves identification. Security helps maintain the law...ect.
...gaaah, boss arrived, will have to think this through and get back to it later.

RE: After Neoconservatism - New York Times