What is the cause of the split in western societies?
I've been trying to understand the essence of the political split in several western democracies... as philosophers do trying to reduce everything to its essence ;-).
Here's what I came up with.
One group believes that creating and maintaining a certain discourse is essential to help create the society you want to have. They think public discourse should be aimed at that ideal. 'Truth' is discourse in line with making sure that future happens.
And the other group doesn't believe in this future (anymore), or doesn't believe that they will be part of that society at least. They view the discourse of the first group as manipulation only to further the goals of a group they don't belong to. 'Truth' is unmasking the 'lies' used for this manipulation.
What is interesting, is that from their respective perspectives, both can be right at the same time.
So in the end, if we want to reduce this polarisation, it would seem necessary to come up with a societal project where more people can believe to be a part of. That, to me, seems to be the main challenge for Western capitalist liberal democracies.
Here's what I came up with.
One group believes that creating and maintaining a certain discourse is essential to help create the society you want to have. They think public discourse should be aimed at that ideal. 'Truth' is discourse in line with making sure that future happens.
And the other group doesn't believe in this future (anymore), or doesn't believe that they will be part of that society at least. They view the discourse of the first group as manipulation only to further the goals of a group they don't belong to. 'Truth' is unmasking the 'lies' used for this manipulation.
What is interesting, is that from their respective perspectives, both can be right at the same time.
So in the end, if we want to reduce this polarisation, it would seem necessary to come up with a societal project where more people can believe to be a part of. That, to me, seems to be the main challenge for Western capitalist liberal democracies.
Comments (45)
A tiny minority don't care about their social status or recognise that its improvement is out of their hands either way, but this group is so small as to make no meaningful difference.
Or is that too cynical?
The bottom line fundamental source of all division in human affairs, both personally and socially, is the nature of thought, the way it works.
Maybe it's to cynical, in that I don't think people allways vote with only their own interest or social status in mind. It think a lot of people want to believe in something larger generally... of course if everything in a culture is pointing to self-interest only, that is what they will come to believe too.
Jake, that is I think going to far in reducing everything to its essence ;-).
Ok, please explain why.
My explanation of the relevance would be as follows. If we see that division arises from thought itself, it logically follows that none of the ideologies being earnestly sold as the solution to division will work.
All throughout history both political and religious people have offered many different ideologies as "the answer". In some cases such as Marxism and Christianity for example, very large numbers of people have embraced the suggested ideology fully. And no matter what the ideology is, no matter what the time and place, no ideology ever leads to an end to division and conflict.
If we accurately see the real source of division then all ideologies are put in a more realistic perspective, which means we take them less seriously, leading to a reduction in polarization. You know, if we see that my theory and yours will lead to roughly the same place, there's less reason for us to fight over our theories. Or at least the volume of the conflict should be reduced.
On the other hand, if I think my theory is the "one true way" and you think your theory is the "one true way" then the stakes are perceived to be much higher, thus fueling the conflict between our visions.
I don't think the split is only or even mostly simply due to a division in ideas, it think it's more a question of economical and social position, and in-groups vs.out-groups. Ideologies are mixed in there, sure, but I think your are missing a vital element if you just gloss over social and economic realities.
Populism and extrimist parties vs establishment parties generally.
As examples, Trump vs Hillary and the rise of populist parties all over Europe.
This might have to do with a backlash against globalism/neoliberalism in response to the financial crisis.
Things are changing however, with China and the Brics countries rapidly overtaking the western countries in economic power. It's only a matter of time I think before this will also translate into more military and political power for them, with a definate shift in the geopolical balance as a result.
The story establishment parties in Western countries have been telling, includes the idea of geopolitical dominance, free markets... and the wealth that comes with that. With the balance of power in the world shifting, liberal capitalist democracies are coming under stress as excess wealth is diminishing. And so more and more people are left behind, and the story is becoming harder and harder to sell.
This is when you get populism, when no establisment party seem to have a believable project that includes a good part of the population.
Therefor we need a new project that takes into account a changed world, not only geopolitically, but also technologically etc... or something will have to give I think.
Yes that is definately part of it. But I think that can also be viewed in an even larger context as I tried to describe in my last post.
You are of course entitled to define the scope you wish to address. I was responding to "I've been trying to understand the essence of the political split". If you instead prefer to travel only part way to the bottom line, ok, I don't object, please proceed.
To quibble a bit, I'm not sure excess wealth is diminishing. If I understand correctly, it's more a case that wealth is being ever more unfairly distributed.
As example, see this article by the Washington Post, which is entitled "The richest 1 percent now owns more of the country’s wealth than at any time in the past 50 years".
The article contains this astounding fact...
To put it another way, you and me and pretty much everybody we know are squabbling over the last 10 percent of the economy. And then we are puzzled as to why our kids have to take on massive debt to get through college etc.
My wife and I love a 40 hour series called The Tudors which dramatizes the time of King Henry the Eighth. There are of course a very small class of nobles at the top, and vast populations of poverty stricken below. It's remarkable how little has changed over the last 500 years.
What has changed is that the nobles have become much more sophisticated in their operations. They got rid of the king above them (in western democracies) and they have melted in to the background so they face less of a threat from below as well. They are still the nobles, they just aren't called that any more. As evidence, again from the Washington Post article...
Jake it's because i'm aware that reduction can go to far that i said what i said about essence in the beginning of my post. Maybe there is no real essence or bottom line to the matter... I gave it a try, and we'll see where it goes.
I'm thinking along the same lines, that nothing has changed all that much.
Lately I've been entertaining the idea that we need a new overt nobility or aristocracy again. What we have now is an oligarchy, which is not exactly nobility because nobility at least has overt standards. The standards of current day oligarchs are probably just profit, which is worse i'd argue. And if every system necessarily devolves into some kind of oligarchy, then it'd better be a noble oligarchy. Noblesse oblige et al...
Defending the planet against an alien (the ultimate immigrants) invasion? ;-)
I think we're (globally) in for a rough Fourth Turning ride for a while. One of the hallmarks of the time is polarization: us vs. them. And I agree with Jake that, at the root of self/other thinking is ... thinking itself.
That would do it, a common external enemy.... if the aliens would be muslim communist even better!
Somewhat semi-serious I was thinking that we need to devellop a consciousness of our unique place in the universe to avoid possibly fatal dissasters, as a sort of secular replacement for religion or myth. As far as we know we are still alone in the universe, which would be remarkable considering the vastness of the universe and all the galaxies, stars and planets in it. The chances to have overcome all that we had to overcome to get here, must be astronomically low. And so wouldn't it be a shame to throw all that away... we still need to go to the stars, that is our destiny! ;-) This kind of origin story would be far more exceptional than any of the religious ones as far as i'm concerned.
Let's just make sure we don't go 'out there' with the drive to conquer and subjugate this time, okay?
Sorry for being so silly in your thread. Carry on!
I agree -- it's economics that is the main driver of social disharmony. Ideals and ideas follow economics. Those who have and control economic resources have profoundly different interests than those who have no control over economic resources. Eventually this economic divide is represented by cultural and philosophical divides as well.
In countries like the United States (and others) a great deal of effort has been poured into hiding the fact that the economic interests of the rich are quite opposed to the economic interests of the worekers.
Often i'm wondering what the reasoning of these rich-elite might be for doing what they do. I mean these are presumably pretty smart guys, and it seems to me that in the long term the growing gap between rich and poor isn't good for them either, in that it threatens the system they are on top of. It would seem that even from a purely self-interested point of view, it would be better to not let the gap grow to great.
Is it simply mindless short-term profit seeking at work, maybe because that what brought them to where they are, and they just keep doing that out of habit?
Maybe there's some other reasons that they don't see the growing gap as a threat to their economic interest in the long term?
Or maybe they just don't have that much power to influence things either, and so they are also at the mercy of the way the system work... and are in the end just content they can move it some inches in their direction?
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
A somewhat biased and simplistic view, I have to say.
First of all, populism is more of a method of approach in getting support (and voters) and is used by both sides of the political spectrum. Hence it's a bit confusing to use the dichotomy of "populism and extremist parties" vs "establishment parties". That's basically the dichotomy populists use: it's the "common people" against the "evil elites". Yet that doesn't say absolutely anything about their actual political agenda or ideology. Hence any party, be it "established" or not, that finds itself in the opposition can easily use populism and opportunism (after all, they're not the elite in charge). Similarly the so-called "established parties" can portray new political movements as "reckless populists".
Also the idea of the rise of populist parties all over Europe is like painting the political map with one broad brush. Political environments differ dramatically from country to country and so does the actual political discourse and the agendas. Now there can be similarities, but bunching everything together makes it far too simplistic when you are talking about politics in one whole continent.
So to your OP. Isn't it what the left/right divide has always been? Both sides believe in their own discourse and don't believe in the other sides discourse (and agenda). And when the other side is in power, they are unhappy. And naturally both sides reason that their agenda is the most logical, reasonable and simply the best way forward as any thinking human being could reason. And that the other side will just lead everything to ruin.
I would argue that the "split" in Western countries was far more bigger in the 20th Century than now.
It's not my intention to take a political side here with the terms populism and extermist, I'm just using commonly used terminolgy to convey meaning, to indicate where I think the split runs nowadays.
And yes, reducing something to it's essence will tend to be an oversimplification. Still I think there might be something to it. Every party uses marketing techniques and spins things in their favour, to get the support of the people. The difference between that and populism is probably mainly a matter of degree, in that it goes further in pandering to the people, suggesting even more simplistic solutions to complex problems, inciting the passions of the people to an even higher extent etc...
And sure there are differences in Europe, they all have their particular history. But the similarities are striking, it's all about immigration, they are reactionary (they all want to return to some time and values gone), they are nationalist and want to fall back on their borders etc...
The difference with the left/right split is that populist don't really engage with current existing order and institutions. It's not just some policy changes left and right, they are advocating going beyond it, sanctioned directly by the people.
And it's not so much about the size of the split, but rather about the nature of it.
Well, the immigration crisis of 2015 had a profound effect on politics in Europe.
As the focus is on the few populist right wing parties, what isn't noticed is the effect and change the crisis had in other established parties. Just to give an example, Sweden, which was (and still is) lead by social democrats, changed quite dramatically it's immigration policy. This naturally isn't reported by those on the right that have an agenda to portray as Sweden being totally open for immigration and hence a failure. Or those that want to portray only the right wing extremists being against open immigration in Europe.
(from 2016)
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Are they? You see "populist" parties are quite different.
Is the "Law and Justice" -party, which got the outright majority in the 2015 elections in Poland and has lead the country since then (and earlier too), similar to the Greek "Golden Dawn", which pushed in the 1990's for the reconquest of Constantinople (Istanbul)? Both are populist parties.
At least here in Finland the "True Finns"-party, which has proclaimed in it's political agenda that it's ideology is based in populism, acted quite responsibly when in government alongside other parties when the 2015 crisis happened. The reason is simple: the True Finns party was formed from the defunct Finnish Rural Party which in no way had anything ideologically to do with right wing extremism. Yep, the party was anti-immigration (remember the populism), but they weren't nazis. And they behaved quite like other parties once in power. Luckily, on their guard the worst immigration crisis hit the country. This actually lead the party to dissolve into two parties, which many think is the perfect outcome. (I cannot estimate how vitriolic the political discourse would have gotten here if then the party would have been in the opposition and the left would have been in power in 2015.)
So what I try to say that not all populist parties are unable to engage with current existing order and institutions. Just as not all populists are like Trump: emerge to be as stupid and inept as they sounded right from the get-go. It's just like many leftist parties in Europe: they may talk the leftist talk during elections, but can be quite moderate and pro-capitalistic in their actual policies.
Yes they are only 'advocating' something that seems to go beyond the current order, once in power they can't really deliver that and adapt because it was never something that really could be implemented in the first place... hence 'populist'.
But your point is well taken, it's an oversimplification. In the end what I am interested in are the major changes in Western capitalist liberal democracies :
- Changes to migration-policies : This is presumably only going to get worse with population growth in Afrika and climate change, so how will the EU handle this?
- Changes to foreign policies : What's going to be the impact of the shift in geopolitical balance of power on the foreign-policy of the US. Will the US become more isolationist again? And will the EU finally devellop a foreign policy of it's own (unlike the last 50 years or so), and start faring a seperate course?
- Changes to economic policies : Will free-market capitalism be limited by protectionism again? And will policies be put into place that limit multinationals floating their money between and over nation states to avoid taxation, or how will be dealt with that?
- Institutional changes : In which direction will the EU go? The people seem to oppose further integration, yet geopolitics and a host of other issues seem to point in the direction of a more integrated EU.
- Technological changes : Artificial Intelligence and the whole Fourth Industrial revolution... what will be the impact of that on our societies?
You rightly point out that immigration policies have allready been changing, also in 'establishment' parties... I think there is a lot more to come, it's sort of an existential moment in Western history I think, with a lot of things coming together at the same time. These are interesting times, if anything.
Allright, I'll say some more because I feel like it didn't really answer to the point.
What I think the difference is with the left/right split or any other regular difference in party programme or ideology, is that a lot of those parties are considered totally unacceptable by the rest of the polical parties and a part of the population.
In a lot of countries, like in mine, they are either implicitly or explicitly excluded from the political proces even before the election... they are put in a 'cordon sanitaire' as they call it, which could be translated into English as a 'quarantine zone' (so the disease cannot spread).
Apparently this is not the case in Finland, and in other parts of Europe, as they were allready part of the government... so i would have to agree that it's not the same everywhere. Still the 'vitriol' you speak of, and the hysteria after the Trump election in the US, indicates to me something that is in essence similar.
Quoting ChatteringMonkeyThe EU has responded with a trying establish “control centres” across the bloc – at locations still to be decided, and only in countries that volunteered to have them. Then it has decided to tighten border controls and give money to Morocco and Turkey, which have to deal with the immigrants. Billions of euros.
What I think is lacking from the debate is the issue that refugees and "irregular migrants" trying to reach Europe can be pawns of countries in a bigger game. Naturally Turkey has used the situation and the EU has had to accommodate to Erdogan's demands… for starters it hasn't truly critisized Erdogans questionable actions in Turkey.
[quote="ChatteringMonkey]- Changes to foreign policies : What's going to be the impact of the shift in geopolitical balance of power on the foreign-policy of the US. Will the US become more isolationist again? And will the EU finally devellop a foreign policy of it's own (unlike the last 50 years or so), and start faring a seperate course?[/quote]
What I think is notable that after all the tweets, tantrums and excesses of Donald Trump,
you can notice the Trump administration still having quite similar foreign policy in the end compared to past administrations. From this one can see that there is this consensus in many things about US foreign policy which isn't changed by one populist President, but favored by both political parties and government institions. It's not a conspiracy or actions of a deep state, it's simply a consensus. Hence isolationism as it was known isn't coming back any time soon.
I think that could happen if in the US a post-Trump administration turns to the left. The popularity of Bernie Sanders tells that is a possibility. That would have big consequences.
EU's problem is that it is inherently a confederacy of independent states that is desperately trying to become a federation... as if the process would be possible to be done just by bureaucrats in Brussells. You can make a confederation act like a federation up to a point. But just up to a point.
I remember years ago while at the university a famous philosopher/spokesperson for the EU visiting Finland told that the way to create a vibrant EU would be to create an European identity above the national identities for the EU without replacing the national identities. Just like the identity of being British was created without the Scots and the Welsh being forced to be English. Nothing of the sort has been actually done (apart from a flag and the recycling of "Ode to Joy"). The bad mistake is that the national identities have been then deemed "nationalistic".
Given the more right wing governement in the East of the EU who refuse to coöperate, it's still unclear if this will work at the moment, certainly should the situation become worse in Afrika.
You are probably right... which means the US policing the world for the forseable future in coöperation with NATO. Still, one should not forget the craziness that is the hunderds of US bases in Europe with rockets aimed at Russia.
My concern here is more what the US will (be forced to) do in relation to China. China's economic power is still growing and the US trade defit still rising. And since China's economy is controled by the government, it translates more directly into political power. If a chinese company buys a harbour (Piraeus) or a utilty company in another country for instance, this is not merely a foreign investor, it's under controle of the Chinese state. This creates yet another unbalance in relation to non state-controled capitalist countries.
Yes it's a bit of a mess at the moment, which is why I think institutional reforms are necessary, in one or the other direction, but not this hybrid form.
"So in the end, if we want to reduce this polarisation, it would seem necessary to come up with a societal project where more people can believe to be a part of. That, to me, seems to be the main challenge for Western capitalist liberal democracies."
The polarization in western society can easily be defined as the distinction between 'stupid' and 'intelligent'.
I don't mean trivialize the matter, but it is as simple as that. We have not (yet) evolved a logical or philosophically validated definition of what intelligence is. Once appropriately defined and philosophically validated in the context of 'the good life' it might then have the social and political potential of becoming the aspiration of the majority. When this occurs, the polarity between left and right, republican and democrat will begin to naturally dissolve, and man can then begin to aspire towards the best form of government, which is the government which has the least need to govern.
M
How the EU would make reforms is the problem. And I think it cannot create an common European identity.
It simply is too bureaucratic and basically the shall we say 'domestic' politicians are totally fine for "Brussels" to be in charge. Then they can blame "Brussels". In fact, the whole problem is that people can critisize "Brussels" and not their own politicians. True power lies with the heads of state of the member countries and their administrations, not with the faceless bureaucracy in Brussels. Perhaps France can have unified it's country with faceless bureaucrats, but the whole of Western Europe is a different thing.
Furthermore, the federalists have this idea that if federalization is not continued, everything will fall somehow apart. How that would happen is beyond me. Why cannot the EU be happy about a loose federation and grant that countries want to go a little bit differently some freedom. Even the state laws in the US can differ a lot.
And things like the common currency ultimately created a bit of a mess that was envisioned as simply the countries would follow similar economic paths. Even with the mess, the currency still has a lot of advantages.
I think both the left and the right have a lot to say about that. And how do we philosophically validate the context of 'the good life'. I assume people have different opinions about this.
From the history I've looked into, it appears that right-wing populism tends to take off when their is a feeling of economic insecurity present as well as insecurity regarding cultural identity, along with the further factor of non-responsive government institutions. I think, I am guessing, after the fall of the USSR,, many social scientists and political pundits thought that there was no alternative to democratic capitalism, so why bother addressing concerns that people living in these societies are having? They have no alternative but to accept the system. Only now we have come to realize how mistaken this thinking was ---- that there is the danger of fascism or some form of authoritarianism returning.
It's also my understanding that social media has a lot to do with the rise in authoritarianism. Social media uses algorithms that allow people to live in a bubble world, a self-reinforcing echo chamber, where they only see one view presented, and often it's a bullshit view of entirely made-up nonsense that people post on the web without really checking into whether the post is accurate, or meaningful in context.
It's simply one of those mysteries I doubt we will ever have a good handle on, except for maybe some broad facts that are present. We have history involved, social media, racism, educational institutions, political institutions, group-think, etc., etc., and how any of these factors contribute to the end result is hard to figure out.
They may have a lot to say about it, however the more they say might well corelate with their respective lack of knowledge of Thoreau, who effectively dissolves the practical and ideological distinction(s) between left and right.
Quoting ssu
I agree that it's too bureaucratic and that the whole federalization and creating of a European identity feels forced right now... still as I alluded to before, some issues simply seem to require a higher level of governance then the national level.
To name a few :
- Seperate national foreign policies seem wasted in a world where everything seems to be determined more and more by big blocks, and the same is true for the military
- The immigration problems seem hard to solve if you have to negotiate and agree with 28 members states every time
- It seems again wastefull to not have common science and innovation agenda's, and to not share research and infrastructures (how are we to compete for instance with China where everything is directed centrally?)
- Climate change is another one that is really only effectively dealt with on a higher governance level.
There are problems too with having an open economy, yet keeping taxation and social policies strictly seperate. You then get competition between memberstates for the most advantagious taxation and social systems, advantagious for companies only that is... so then it quickly becomes a race to the bottom.
So returning more to the nation states does seem a bit reactionary to me, and not really suited to today's world and problems.
The inefficient bureaucracy is a big problem, I definitely agree with that, and the question is if this can ever be solved or if it's just a natural consequence of scale. But there are two things that might be reasons to expect it to get better. One is that the European Union is in terms of a governing body still very young. These things need time to iron things out and traditions to be built up. And two, with new data technology the larger scale might not be such a big problem in the future.
Anyway, though I'm conflicted about this, I just can't really see the nation states as the solution for the future.
Americans would like to blame Brussels as well. We are tired of criticizing and blaming Washington, and Washington has grown accustomed to being criticized, excoriated, referenced as a swamp, and threatened with draining. Perhaps American criticism of Brussels would be refreshing to the bureaucrats there.
We enlightened moderns dismiss the ethnic identities of the rabble, frown on nationalism, disapprove of the nation state, regret the existence of hierarchies, reject religious identity, and so on. We, of course, think of ourselves as transethnic; beyond gender's dictatorship; world citizens; above hierarchy (or would that be below hierarchy?); not religious; etc.
If we want to find the people who are quite out of touch with reality, all we have to do is look in the mirror.
Very large complex societies maintain their internal organization using national identity, gendered roles, hierarchies, ethnicities, religion, race, and so on. The results of maintaining strong internal identity -- identity strong enough to survive world wars, civil wars, regional wars, economic collapse, and so forth are not altogether pleasant, but they work quite well.
I think a nation state that can hold itself together and function in a complex, sometimes destabilized world is a good thing, and citizens, being the primates that we are, need recognizable features to identify with.
I do not have enough background to assert that the Balkan war of the 1990s was material and not ethnic. There seems to have been a very strong and long-standing desire to reorganize ethnic distribution, and if possible eliminate some of them altogether (mass graves). Were there material necessities? Don't know.
Israel and Palestine have both material necessity and ethnic identity in conflict. The Middle East may be homogeneous as far as Islam is concerned, but there are various ethnicities and material interests in conflict. Burma wants to be Buddhist and has discriminated against both Moslems and Christians (maybe others too... don't know). How different ethnically the Moslems and Christians are, don't know. Is it a religious or ethnic conflict? China has decided that Uyghurs are an undesired ethnic/religious group.
I would anticipate that in the presence of increases economic, climate, and agricultural stress, groups will seek to solidly their cohesive identities, as well as their material needs.
The best way to avoid a trampling and crushing of minorities as the majorities rush for the exits, so to speak, is to try avoid as much economic, climate, and agricultural stress as possible. Otherwise, prepare for interesting times.
Good post Bitter Crank.
Thought you are probably right that I myself am somewhat disconnected for all these identities, as philosophical types tend to be, it was not my intention to frown on or dismiss any of them per se.
I have allways been critical of the intellectual left in my country and Europe for disregarding these identities as outdated, barbaric or what have you. With their war against these 'social contructions' I think they alienated the working class, the people... and so are in my view one of the main contributors to what we see now.
The cosmopolitan values they promoted are mainly only negative values, or 'meta-values' as i would call them. Equality, non-discrimination, multi-culturalism, freedom of religion etc... don't really have a content of themselves. They only serve to let different cultures and religions co-exist in one super-state. They are really empire-values, probably first originating in the Persian empire. And as such they can't really be the main course... there need to be recognizable features to identify with as you say.
So I guess my point is twofold. First, culturally I have no problem with strong national or ethnic identities, as long as they don't lead to what we have seen in Europe in the 20th century. And second, although these identities play an important role, we do need to recognize that the world has changed, and some of todays problems probably cannot be solved if we do not delegate some of the power to a higher level of governance.
More recently than the Nazis, the Rwanda and the Balkan massacres come to mind. The Balkans seems to have produced some unusually long-lived and bitter hatreds, about as murderous as those of the Hutus towards the Tutsis. The Communist government clamped down on inter-ethnic conflict, but as we saw in the '90s, once the clamp was gone the hatred flowed as vigorously as ever.
Oh, it's quite possible: Just add there Democrats working with Brussels to emasculate the US and a sinister plot against American white heterosexual males. Also add a global pedophile ring there too. The Russian intelligence services would be so excited to nurture this new conspiracy with their trolls and bots!
It is all about economics.
In an affluent society where people have work and a full stomach there's no need to find the culprit for your problems in the local minorities. There can be the ordinary rambling, but people aren't going to start a civil war or the government won't feel so threatened that it starts persecuting the minorities.
If a nation state is young and the idea of the state isn't yet fully acknowledged in the people, then it can be problematic for minorities, but that is a special case. And in Europe the last tumultous time when the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia collapsed and new states gained independence (or got independence again) is already history to young people.
The thing is that it's not so clear cut I think. Yes those on top are the ones who profit, but at same time without any established order, there is nothing really. Brainwashing or creating a common ideal to work to, depends on the perspective of your particular position in relation to that order.
That's what I was taking about in my OP, that it makes sense from both perspectives. I wish it was a bit more fair too, which is the problem right now I think, that a large part of the population doesn't feel like they are a part of it.
You raised good points, ChatteringMonkey.
The problem is how to make nation states act as a team and be a functioning part of a federation. And as you said, that may be problematical. From the US states only Texas (I guess) was Independent for a brief time before joining the Federation. People usually have learned to be a part of a nation state as citizens and this bond the nation states have nurtured more or less successfully. The bond between the EU and it's citizens is, well, nearly non-existent. The EU has just been marketed as a way to improve our economy. And the idea that without the EU the European countries would start fighting each other seems quite remote today.
The real paradox is that perhaps for the EU to integrate and truly become a federation like the US, one would need unifier-politicians like Bismarck...or Napoleon. And that is a nightmarish thought. But let's not forget that the US had it's Civil War.