Thursday, November 8, 2018

Stanford University Faculty, Staff, and Students Living in Campus Housing Voted 10.8% for John Cox Republican for Governor and 9.8% for Christine Russell Republican for the House of Representatives

Four precincts (Santa Clara County Precincts 2542, 2544, 2545, and 2546) circumscribe Stanford University.  Precincts 2542 and 2544 consist of undergraduate and graduate students.  Precinct 2545 consists of faculty and staff.  Precinct 2546 includes both students and faculty/staff.

The percentages supporting the Republican and Democrat candidates for Governor and House of Representatives District 18 in each of the four precincts were similar, ranging from a low of 87.1% to a high of 91.8% for Democrat Gavin Newsom for Governor and between 88.7-92.5% for Democrat Anna Eshoo for California District 18.  Democrats Newsom received 89.2% and Eshoo 90.2% of the votes for all four precincts taken together.  Newsom received 1,137 out of 1,275 votes cast and Eshoo 1,145 out of 1,270 cast.

To summarize, Stanford campus residents cast 9 Democrat BLUE votes for every 1 Republican RED vote for both offices.  Faculty, staff, and students voted almost identically BLUE and RED.  From a political point of view, Stanford enjoys 10% RED DIVERSITY from the 90% BLUE majority.

BTW, the BLUE vote declined from Hillary Clinton’s 91.6% share in 2016.  Put another way, political diversity increased almost 2%.

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

Dateline: November 7, 2018, Qo’noS (Kronos), Klingon Home World

On November 7, 2018, the Klingon High Council imposed an indefinite ban on visas to Earthling members, supporters, and donors of the Democrat Party to visit any settlement or planet in the Klingon Empire.

Responding to a question from an Earthling reporter at an interstellar press conference, the spokesman for the High Council replied that the central value defining Klingon Warrior Culture is honor.  The spokesman stated that Democrats have no honor as revealed in their treatment of President Trump and Judge Kavanaugh.  Accordingly, Earthling Democrats will be denied the privilege of sightseeing and interacting with Klingons.

Simultaneously, on the Vulcan Home World, the Vulcan High Command issued a similar ban on visas to Earthling Democrats for travel in Vulcan space.

Responding to an Earthling reporter’s question at an interstellar press conference, the Vulcan spokesman replied that the central value defining Vulcan Culture is logic and the suppression of emotion.  The spokesman stated that Earthling Democrats reject logic and resorted to mobs in their treatment of President Trump and Judge Kavanaugh.  Accordingly, Earthling Democrats will be denied the privilege of sightseeing and interacting with Vulcans.

Seeing a chance to profit from the Klingon and Vulcan bans on Earthling tourism, on November 8, 2018, at an interstellar press conference, the Grand Nagus and members of the Ferengi Commerce Authority announced incentives for tourist agencies that bring free-spending Earthling Democrats to Ferenginar and other settlements in the Ferengi Alliance.  The Ferengi are obsessed with profit and trade.  The 285 Rules of Acquisition is the basis on which Ferengi society is organized.  Ferengi strive to accumulate as may bars of gold-pressed latinum as possible, and take pride in swindling unwary customers.

Similarly, at an interstellar press conference, a spokesman for the Imperial Senate and the Continuing Committee of the Romulan Star Empire encouraged Earthling Democrats to visit their Romulus and Remus Home Worlds.  Romulans are a counterpoint to the logical Vulcan race, whom they resemble and with whom they share a common ancestry.  Romulans are characterized as passionate, cunning, and opportunistic, the exact opposite of the logical and cold Vulcans.  The press spokesman stated that Romulans and Earthling Democrats could learn duplicitious, deceitful, dishonest, and treacherous methods from each other.

Other humanoid extraterrestrials, including the Cardassians, Andorians, Bajorans, and Betazoid, have convened their political leadership on how best to capitalize on the exclusion of Earthling Democrats from Klingon and Vulcan space, and if they could benefit in some way by competing with the Ferengi and Romulans to encourage Earthling Democrats to visit their worlds.

Interstellar reporters on the home worlds of these other races were told that announcements would be forthcoming,

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Economic Freedom, Part 3

The attempt to develop a rigorous, quantitative measure of economic freedom may strike some as a presumptuous undertaking.  The effort requires agreement on the conceptual dimensions of economic freedom, the indicators or data that fit or reflect each of the several dimensions of economic freedom, and the generation of a number (or numbers) that sums up all of the different dimensions, thereby permitting comparative ratings on the degree of economic freedom that exists both in the aggregate for each of the different dimensions of economic life in every country in the world at any point in time.  This post summarizes the initial effort.  I encourage you to read the full text of defining economic freedom and some possible measures, which appears in Chapter 4, Economic Freedom:  Toward a Theory of Economic Measurement (pages 87-108).  It lays a foundation for subsequent efforts to refine the conceptual elements of economic freedom, identify data requirements, and develop quantitative measures.  The ultimate objective is an annual report or yearbook, which has been produced annually by the Fraser Institute since 1996, rating economic freedom in every country around the globe, thereby upgrading the initial Freedom House Rating prepared by Zane Spindler and Laurie Still (Chapter 5, pages 135-171).

In Chapter 4 I tried to offer a preliminary definition, a check list, or a recipe of economic freedom ingredients.  I tried to identify the fewest number of dimensions that would be self-contained, consistent, and coherent.  Obviously, you could break them into many more.  This same set of seven dimensions could be subdivided into 10, 20, 25, or 30, as the case may be.  I compromised in the trade-off to produce something that is both meaningful and simple.

Some of the seven dimensions represent notions about individuals and others aggregate notions about the whole society.  For example, the schedule of marginal rates affects an individual’s decision to work, save, and invest, while an average tax burden may affect the society as a whole.

A second way to slice through these seven categories is in terms of institutions or rules and policies or incentives.  The first two, private property and the rule of law, I regard as institutional framework rules.  The others are public policies that governments undertake which have an effect on people’s capacity to do things economically and make them more or less free.

Two Institutions

My taxonomy is guided by philosophical considerations.  One cannot proceed without talking about private property.  A second area connected to private property is the rule of law.  In one community the rules are clear and one can expect fair and impartial treatment, and in the other the laws seem whimsical and decision making appears capricious.  The rule of law can enhance economic freedom through a written code, an independent judiciary, the structure of the legal codes, what kind of legal code it is, rights of appeal, and so on.

Five Categories of State Intervention

The first area of state intervention I examine is taxation.  Taxation can encompass high taxation, low taxation, the structure of taxes, composition of taxes, visible versus invisible taxes, rates of tax, whether taxes are used to redistribute income and wealth, taxes versus user fees to finance public services, and a broad-based proportional low tax scheme that promotes or enhances economic freedom as opposed to a loophole-ridden selective system with high rates on some kinds of economic activities and no rates on others.

A second area is public spending, the counterpart of taxation.  For centuries, the principle of balanced budgets regulated budget policy.  For the past 75 years, budget deficits have become a way of life in most advanced and developing countries. Until 1929, public spending in the U.S. consumed 10% of GDP.  Since then it has tripled.  The amount of spending, how it is spent, the amount of interest paid on a large and growing public debt, and the growing welfare state all have an impact on economic freedom, the ability of individuals to exercise responsibility for their own affairs.  What kind of spending enhances economic freedom and which doesn’t?

A third area is regulation of business and labor.  Regulatory agencies have dramatically increased in number and scope since 1960.  For business, important aspects of economic freedom include legal formalities required to set up a business should be few and inexpensive, free entry and exit into any line of production, absence or presence of monopoly practices that benefit specific firms or industries, and free movement of prices to equate supply and demand in the market place.  Other regulations are designed to control externalities such as air and water pollution, impose safety requirements on food, drugs, transportation carriers, the production of other goods and services that affect public health and safety, job safety inspections, equal employment opportunity enforcement, consumer product safety standards, and energy restrictions.  However, regulations can entail large expenditures to comply, or they can be imposed in a least-cost, minimally-interventionist manner.  How they are imposed affects both efficiency and economic freedom.

Labor regulations entail the rights of workers, choice of occupation, freedom to travel at home and abroad, unions (right to strike, compulsory payment of union dues, membership requirements), sick leave, vacation time, fringe benefits, hours of work, workmen’s compensation ordinances, pension fund requirements, and other measures.  All of these impact the economic freedom of workers and the overall labor market, raising the cost of production and reducing employment.

A fourth area is money.  The following policies, practices, and institutions, among others, should be examined to investigate a link between monetary policy and economic freedom:

The legal right of non-governmental entities to issue private currency;
The absence of legal tender laws;
The right to buy (free of sales and other taxes), own, and exchange gold (silver) coins;
An accurate description of the monetary system;
The successful conduct of monetary policy in terms of price stability and steady growth;
Convertibility of currency (into goods and services and other currencies);
Free inward and outward movement of capital;
Competition within banking and financial services sectors; and
Monetary policy rules.

The final area is foreign trade.  Free trade maximizes both efficiency and economic freedom.  It enables individuals to buy and sell freely on world markets, selling products at the highest possible price and purchasing goods and services at the lowest possible price and giving individuals the widest possible choice of consumer goods.  Free trade also permits specialization, division of labor, and the principle of comparative advantage to work to the benefit of individuals and firms in each country.

Those socialist and developing countries that pursued policies of self-reliance, self-sufficiency, import substitution, protectionism, and other inward-looking policies resulted in dismal records of economic performance and curtailed economic freedom.  Those that pursued policies in a milieu of free trade flourished.

Free trade means an absence of tariffs, non-tariff barriers, capital controls, restrictions on direct foreign investment, and government controlled marketing boards that fix the price of imports to consumers and exports to producers.

Summary

In the interests of parsimony here, I encourage you to read the full text of my paper and the subsequent discussion with the conference participants.

The measurement of economic freedom has been refined and improved since the Napa Valley Conference held in Vancouver in July 1988, both for the Fraser Institute Annual Report and the follow-on Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index.  I hope you will review the Fraser Institute Annual Report published in conjunction with the Cato Institute.

Thursday, November 1, 2018

Stanford Donates 99.3% BLUE

Stanford University has its own zip code, 94305. In addition to academic buildings and athletic facilities, the campus is home to about one thousand faculty and staff (with their families) and around 12,000 students.  Campus faculty/staff residents number about half of Stanford's overall faculty and top administration staff, with the other half living in neighboring towns and suburbs.  (It's likely that on- and off-campus faculty and staff have similar political predilections.)

The current election cycle (the 2018 mid-terms) began on January 1, 2017.  As of October 26, 2018, the Federal Election Commission reported that those living in the 94305 zip code donated $1,751,903 to political candidates and political party affiliated organizations.  Of that amount, $1,740,303, 99.3%, was donated BLUE to Democrat candidates and organizations.  A minuscule $11,600, 0.3%, was donated RED to Republican candidates and organizations.

Hoover Institution Fellows and their families donated $11,350, 97.8% of all RED donations.  However, Hoover Institution Fellows and their families donated $20,180 BLUE.  Even at the ostensibly "conservative" Hoover Institution, BLUE donations almost doubled RED.  In addition, more Hoover Fellows voted BLUE than RED in 2016 and will do so again on November 6, 2018 (my informal survey).  In 1971, all 11 Hoover Fellows Donated and voted RED.

On November 7, 2018, I will report the precise BLUE/RED Stanford votes for governor and local House of Representatives member for the four precincts, 2542, 2544, 2545, and 2546, that constitute Stanford's zip code 94305.

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Dream Of The Red Chamber, Elections With American Characteristics For The Current Era

The night before the November 8, 2016 elections, I had  a Dream Of The Red Chamber with three rooms: a small one for the President, a medium-size room for the U.S. Senate, and a large room for the House of Representatives.  I knew for sure, as Joseph knew from his interpretation of the Pharaoh’s dreams in ancient Egypt that seven lean years would follow seven fat years, that Donald Trump would be elected president and that Republicans would control both houses of Congress. Even more important, for my peace of mind and America’s future, there would be no Blue Room inside the Red Chamber in which Hillary Clinton would sit as president.

I plan to dream again on Monday night, November 5, before the mid-term elections on November 6, 2018.  I am quite firm in my belief that all three rooms in the Red Chamber will remain RED!

If I am wrong (GHUA), and the large room hosting the House of Representatives is repainted BLUE, I dread the nightmares that will come from watching Maxine Waters preside over the House Ways and Means (tax-writing) Committee, Nancy Pelosi (gasp) as Speaker of the House, and so on up and down all the committees and sub-committees of the House.  YARGH!

Thursday, October 25, 2018

Economic Freedom, Part 2

Most of us have an intuitive or common-sense notion of the meaning of economic freedom.  A smattering of features or attributes includes free markets, private enterprise, voluntary exchange, capitalism, limited government, laissez-faire, free trade, low taxes, free movement of capital, and other dimensions of economic life.

But we want to go beyond these descriptors to measures of economic freedom.  How much more economic freedom does South Korea have compared with North Korea?  Hong Kong with China?  China 35 years ago with China today?  Has economic freedom increased or decreased in Sweden during the last 10 years?  It would be ideal to develop a rating system that permits quantitative comparisons across nations and over time.

A first step is to develop a philosophy or definition of economic freedom in order to identify common (as well as divergent) elements that should be measured.

Political philosophers and thinkers have explored the notion of freedom from the beginning of recorded history.  The first use of the word “liberty” is traceable to ancient Sumer.  Cuneiform writing on clay cones excavated at Lagash, in Sumer, contained the freedom laws of the good King Urukagina that he promulgated to rid the land of tax collectors.

Ancient and medieval philosophers were largely concerned with the political dimensions of freedom:  a voice in collective decision making (Greek democracies).  Political freedom meant self-rule, or the absence of external control.  It did not emphasize the rights of the individual to non-interference from the state or protection under the rule of law.

The modern notion of freedom signifies non-interference in the private affairs of individuals in a society governed under the rule of law.  The freedom to own a certain amount of property was seen as a necessary condition for being able to maintain personal independence.  The development of property rights went hand-in-hand with longstanding provisions of human rights that were proclaimed in the Magna Carta in 1215, in thousands of medieval charters in England and continental Europe, and in the procedural safeguards of person and property that developed in the common law.

Against this backdrop, economic freedom seriously developed into a coherent and powerful intellectual tradition with the publication of John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government (1689). which emphasized freedom of association, private property, and the sacrosanct nature of individual liberty secured under the rule of law.  David Hume reinforced Locke’s emphasis on the right to property as the foundation of society and government.

Locke was followed nearly a century later by Adam Smith with the publication of Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), which emphasized a system of individual and commercial liberty based on private property.  Nineteenth-century England was governed by the principles of Locke and Smith.  Its hallmarks were free trade, laissez-faire, low taxes, low state expenditure, and a minimally interventionist government.

Milton Friedman was a modern-day Locke,  He asserted the primacy of the individual as the ultimate entity in society, focusing on the role that private property plays in fostering economic and political freedom, and economic prosperity.  Friedman, with the assistance of his wife Rose, set forth  a coherent statement of economic freedom in 1962 in a collection of essays entitled Capitalism and Freedom.  The book explains the role of competitive capitalism as a system of economic freedom.  It also discusses the legitimate role of government in a free society, identifying those areas where government intervention in the private affairs of individuals is warranted, but also where it goes beyond the limited legitimate tasks of government harming both economic freedom and efficiency.

The legitimate tasks of government include the maintenance of law and order to prevent physical coercion of one individual over another, to enforce contracts voluntarily entered into, and to regulate activities where one individual’s economic activity imposes harm or losses on another (externalities).

In a later volume Free to Choose (1980), the Friedmans set forth an Economic Bill of Rights, a counterpart to the political Bill of Rights in the Constitution.  These include a tax or spending limitation as a share of national income, freedom to import and export (free trade), a ban on wage and price controls, a ban on occupational licensure, a requirement for proportional taxation (flat-rate tax), and others.

A third approach to economic freedom is embodied in the libertarian work of Murray Rothbard, the purest expression of economic freedom.  Rothbard grounded his political philosophy of liberty on a natural law foundation, especially Locke’s treatment of property and ownership.  His theory of liberty rests on the establishment of the rights of property, which determines each individual’s sphere of free action.  His society of pure freedom is based on free and voluntary exchanges.  The free market economy thus depends on upon a free society with a certain pattern of property rights and ownership titles.  He departs from Friedman on the need for the state to enforce contracts.  It is not the function of law to enforce morality or promises made to each other.  Enforcement is only appropriate when one party steals the property of another.

Going further, Rothbard defines taxation as theft.  The use of coercive taxation to acquire revenue and the compulsory monopoly of force and ultimate decision-making power over a given territorial area on the part of the state constitute criminal aggression and depredation of the just rights of private property of its subjects.  Rothbard also contends that the services generally thought to require a state, from the coining of public money to police protection to the development of law in the defense of private property rights (all part of Friedman’s legitimate role for government) can be and have been supplied with greater efficiency and morality by private persons.

Rothbard’s libertarian vision is more utopian than practical.  Other philosophers, from John Locke to Adam Smith to Milton Friedman, grant specific, if limited, powers to government or the state, including the power to tax, enforce laws, maintain order, and defend the nation, which reflects the real world activities of government.

A fuller discussion of this synopsis of the philosophical aspects or definition of economic freedom is found in the Books section of my website, alvinrabushka.com, in Chapter 2, pp.23-55, of Economic Freedom:  Toward a Theory of Measurement.  See my article “Philosophical Aspects of Economic Freedom” and accompanying discussion, which can be downloaded here.  I encourage you to read the chapter.

The next post sets forth possible measures with which to rate economic freedom.

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Economic Freedom, Part 1

In October 1986, with support from the Liberty Fund in Indianapolis, Indiana, the Fraser Institute convened the first of four conferences in Napa Valley, California.  The Fraser Institute published the proceedings in 1988, Economic Freedom, Democracy and Welfare.  Edited by Michael A. Walker, Director of The Fraser Institute, and co-chaired with Milton and Rose Friedman, the conference was organized as a counterpart to do for economic freedom what Freedom House did for political freedom:  to calculate the amount of economic freedom that exists in various nations of the world.

Its origins can be traced to a conversation in 1994 at the Mont Pelerin Meeting in Cambridge, England, between Michael Walker and Milton Friedman, whose book Capitalism and Freedom had been extant since 1962.  However, there had been no serious attempt to explore the relationship between economic and political freedom in a scholarly way.  That conversation led to the idea of broadening the analysis to also include civil freedoms, which can often be more important than political freedoms.

The conference consisted of several conceptual, historical, and statistical papers, most notably those Nobel Laureates in Economics Douglass C. North and Milton Friedman.  These were fleshed out with case studies on economic freedom in East Asia (Alvin Rabushka), Africa (Lord Peter Bauer), Latin America (Ramon Diaz), and Sweden (Ingemar Stahl).  Another paper dealt with property rights (Svetozar Pejovich).  Discussants included Armen Alchian, Walter Block, Herbert J. Grubel, Arnold Harberger, Brian Kantor, Assar Lindbeck, Michael Parkin, Gordon Tullock, and Sir Alan Walters.  It would be hard to find a more distinguished group of scholars concerned with economic freedom, or any other economic subject for that matter.

A second conference was convened in July 1988 in Vancouver, Canada.  Edited by Walter E. Block, the proceedings were published in 1991, Economic Freedom:  Toward a Theory of Measurement.  (The volume is available for free download on my website alvinrabushka.com.)  This conference was designed to set forth the philosophical foundations of economic freedom and its conceptual definition that would provide a basis for measurement.

Michael Walker set the background for the proceedings with a summary of the preceding conference held in Napa Valley.  Alvin Rabushka wrote the next three papers:  “Philosophical Aspects of Economic Freedom,” “Freedom House Survey of Economic Freedoms“ (for comparative purposes), and “Preliminary Definition of Economic Freedom.”  I will discuss the contents of these papers in subsequent posts.  The final paper was an initial attempt by Zane Spindler and Laurie Still to calculate “Economic Freedom Rankings” for 145 countries on a five-point scale based on Rabushka’s “Definition” paper.

Conference participants, in alphabetical order, also included James Ahiakpor, David Friedman, Milton Friedman, Rose Friedman, James Gwartney, William Hammett, Henri LePage, Henry Manne, Richard McKenzie, Antonio Martino, Charles Murray, Ellen Paul, Robert Poole, and Gerard Radnitsky.

The third and fourth conferences were held in Banff, Alberta, Canada in 1989, and Sea Ranch, California in 1990.  The two were melded into the third volume in The Fraser Institute Rating Economic Freedom Project.  Stephen T. Easton and Michael A. Walker edited the volume, Rating Global Economic Freedom, published in 1992.

Papers in this volume focused on more precise measures of economic freedom for countries around the world for which data were available.

Authors and participants included James C.W. Ahiakpor, Juan F. Bendfelt, Walter E. Block, Jack L. Carr, John F. Chant, Edward H. Crane, Arthur T. Denzau, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Stephen T. Easton, Milton Friedman, John C. Goodman, James D. Gwartney, Edward Lee Hudgins, Ronald W. Jones, Robert A. Lawson, Richard McKenzie, Joanna F. Miyake, Charles Murray, Alvin Rabushka, Richard W. Rahn, Alan Reynolds, Laurie Rubner, Gerard W. Scully, Bernard H. Siegan, Zane A. Spindler, Alan C. Stockman, Richard L. Stroup, Melanie Tammen, and Michael A. Walker.

The first comprehensive report based on the four conferences and three conference volumes was Walter Block, James Gwartney, and Robert A. Lawson, Economic Freedom of the World, 1975-1995, published on January 1, 1996.  Thereafter subsequent annual reports were published for 1997, 1998-1999, and then annually through 2018 (published in conjunction with the Cato Institute since 2001).  Separate periodic reports for North America were published from 2002 and for the Arab World from 2005.  Altogether, about a dozen individuals have helped to edit the series of annual reports on Economic Freedom.

In 1995, The Heritage Foundation, in conjunction with the Wall Street Journal, created a rival Index of Economic Freedom.  The Heritage/WSJ index was conceptually and empirically simpler than the Fraser Index.

Subsequent posts in this series will discuss in greater detail the philosophy, concepts, and measures of Economic Freedom that make up the Fraser Institute Annual Report

Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Stanford Football, Third Try Is A Charm

With Oregon's victory over Washington, Stanford has a clear path to the Rose Bowl.  Run the table and it's in.  This means wins against Arizona State, surprising Washington State, and, perhaps most difficult, Washington in the next three weeks.

For the third time, I'm asking Coach Shaw to add several plays to the offensive scheme.

(1) Play-action pass on first down from the power run formation.

(2) West Coast offense with its short passing game.

(3) Screen pass to fullback.

These additions to the offense early in the game will loosen up the linebackers, which will improve the prospects for the running game (and keep Bryce Love from getting smashed up at the line of scrimmage).

So on behalf of the thousands of Stanford fans, please give it a try.

Your football friend.

PS.  I watched unranked Missouri's stunning upset of No. 2 ranked Alabama in its September 8, 1975, season-opening 20-7 loss.  Alabama was committed to the running game.  Missouri stacked 9 defenders along the line of scrimmage and completely throttled Alabama's rushing attack.  Alabama persisted running the ball without success until late in the game, when the outcome was largely decided.

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

U.S. Foreign Policy Faces Grave Danger, Part 5

This post wraps up my series on U.S. Foreign Policy Faces Grave Danger.

In March 2005, Bush adviser Karen Hughes was named to a State Department post, Deputy Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. In late September 2005 she traveled to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to open a dialogue with important Muslim countries. Her task was to persuade them that Bush’s War on Terror was not a War against Islam.

On September 26, 2005, Hughes met with a small group of Egyptians who had studied in the U.S. She told them “it’s sometimes hard to talk about difficult issues,” but that “we’re open to ideas.”

Prominent Egyptians told Hughes that the U.S. can improve its image in the Middle East only by changing its policies, namely, that its policies on Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and what the U.S. said was inconsistent with its [favorable] treatment of repressive Arab governments.

Hughes second stop was Saudi Arabia, On September 27, 2018, she told a group of Saudi women that they could be like her and have the right to drive and wear pretty clothes.

The Saudi women harshly criticized her for denouncing their culture and trying to force change on Saudi society. They told her that Saudi women were happy and did not like the image of unhappy Saudi women portrayed in the American media. These remarks met with applause from female colleagues dressed in the black abaya.

Next stop was Turkey. In a September 28, 2005, meeting with Turkish women active in non-governmental organizations, Hughes was harshly criticized due to Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.

Hughes trip was a total failure. But the fault was that of Bush and his foreign policy team, not Hughes. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Egypt to talk about human rights. After a speech at the American University of Cairo on June 20, 2005, she got an earful from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

In October 2007, Karen Hughes resigned her position and returned to private business.

Bush, Rice, and Hughes were steeped in the paradigm of Western democracy. It was inconceivable to them that Middle East residents were not equally keen on American political institutions, practices, and values. Bush’s vision of a just war in Iraq to promote democracy was in marked opposition to views held by the region’s major powers.


Diversity and Inclusion


Every U.S. college and university adheres to the doctrine that Diversity and Inclusion of students, faculty, and staff is essential for educated Americans to interact productively in their political, economic, and social relations with foreigners of different racial, religious, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, gender, tribal, social, economic, and other distinguishing characteristics. Diversity and Inclusion further stipulates that interaction between different groups must take place under respectful conditions in which the values, ideas, and contributions of each group are made to feel welcome and equally valued.

No prominent individual has been able to persuade university leaders and faculty that the doctrine of Diversity and Inclusion on which all of U.S. higher education is predicated could possibly be wrong in any way.

Much as Chinese higher education is governed by Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for the Modern era, so too U.S. higher education is governed by Bush/ObamaThought on Democracy with American characteristics of Diversity and Inclusion for the Modern Era.

Let’s consider the counter-argument.

First, the story of Karen Hughes is self-explanatory.

Second, those instilled with (blinded by) D&I as the only acceptable view of human relations will be unable to acknowledge, much less deal with, reality when it differs from D&I.

Third, individuals who factually describe, let’s call them “fact-based realists (FBR),” poor or harmful conditions among peoples in different places around the world will be harshly criticized by Americans who descend from, or identify with, those persons. Americans of African, Latin American, Asian, and other backgrounds will accuse FBR of racism, sexism, homophobia, and so forth. FBR will be compelled to recant their “disrespectful” statements and/or resign their positions. In American parlance, FBR will be accused of “blaming the victims.”

Fourth, stating the fact that the vast majority of countries and active secessionist movements, some three-quarters of the world’s population, live in countries that prize Homogeneity and Exclusion will be deemed heresy, punishable by loss of job and social ostracism.

Fifth, in plural societies, rival groups do not respect and value each other. Rather, rival groups hate each other. Perhaps that explains Bush’s failure to understand that his vision of a unified Iraq is not shared by Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds. Or, English and French-speaking Cameroonians. And on and on and on for dozens of countries and secessionist movements.

Foreign policy cannot be constructively conducted in a world driven by U.S. based identity politics that precludes FBR. It must go wrong. Think George W. Bush and Iraq. Think Barack Obama and Libya and Syria.


Politics in Plural Societies


Only now, that leftist intellectuals have rediscovered identity politics in the wake of President Trump’s presumed White-backlash election victory over Hillary Clinton, has identity politics come to the fore. The democracy school encompassing over 90% of U.S. political scientists has been trying to show that democracy is an unstoppable force spreading around the world, transcending group differences.

But in the past few years, these same scholars write of a democracy recession, a democracy depression. I’ll limit my comments here to Francis Fukuyama’s 2018 book entitled Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. In a summary article published on September 12, 2018, in The Hill, Fukuyama states that “The United States invaded Iraq in 2003, arguing that it intended to replace Saddam Hussein with a friendly democratic regime. Fifteen years later, that goal does not appear in sight.”

What went wrong?

“The underlying problem in Iraq is the absence of any sense of overarching national identity. There is no entity called Iraq to which citizens feel loyalty, in preference to their ethnic group, sect, region, or tribe.” (Did he not know that Sunnis and Shias have been enemies for twelve centuries?)

“Within the greater Middle East, Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan have been embroiled in civil wars as a result of out-of-control identity politics.”

Fukuyama notes that the Democrat Party has changed from broad-based coalitions of the New Deal and Great Society to one based on its component identity groups. He blames that partly on Democrats who rejected assimilation to an overarching national identity and partly on Donald Trump and the rise of a new generation of right-wing identitarians. 

I’m not going to comment on the pros and cons of his recommendations for national service to cut across race, ethnicity, and class. You can buy his book, read them, and decide for yourself. What is important about his book, and a spate of others echoing the same theme, is that identity politics obstructs democracy. This is how they explain the democracy recession/depression and the rise of “nationalists” states around the world.

What is amazing has been their denial of FBR for decades, in which identities have been held in check by colonial powers and authoritarian regimes. FBR was not compatible with their global democracy activism.

Herein lies great danger. Diversity and Inclusion is an ideology. Ideology, as the late Professor William Riker stated, is a false view of reality. There can be no room for fact-based realists in the D&I utopian remake of American society. Conducting FBR foreign policy is going to be a nightmare for future presidents, secretaries of state, and secretaries of defense.

Friday, October 12, 2018

Two Wrongs Make A Right

First.  In my post of September 23, 2018, I criticized Senator Chuck Grassley’s handling of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for associate justice of the Supreme Court in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  I was premature and wrong.  Senator Grassley brilliantly shepherded Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination through the Judiciary Committee.

Second.  In my post of September 11, 2018, I wrote that Stanford was poised to win the football national championship, earning Coach David Shaw a ring.  I was premature and wrong.  Notre Dame and Utah obliterated Stanford’s defense and Shaw’s offense could not mount a successful running game.

To be fair to myself, I wrote that Coach Shaw had to make a modest change or two in his offensive scheme, beginning with a play action pass on first down from its power run formation.  Shaw did not.  After two failed runs into the teeth of the Notre Dame and Utah defensive fronts, Quarterback K.J. Costello had to run for his life trying to complete third-and-long passes against relentless defensive pressure.  Costello did a creditable job in both games, save one underthrown pass against Utah, keeping Stanford in contention for as long as he could, but to no avail.

After the game, Coach Shaw doubled down on his offensive scheme, reminding reporters that he has been successful during his tenure and that power football is Stanford’s philosophy.  During the break between the first and second quarters of the game, one of the ESPN broadcasters said that “Shaw is stubborn.”  Stanford can still make it to the Rose Bowl this season, but the prospects are not encouraging.  Watch for the opening offensive series in the next game, which will tell you all you need to know.

PS.  Still, every day brings a beautiful morning.  Hillary is not in the White House and that her friends are not holding high government office.  With Kavanaugh’s confirmation, the sun is brighter than ever.  The 80-90% left-leaning, Democrat Party faculty and administrators of the top 20 national universities wake up miserable every day, and will remain so through at least 2020, possibly (and hopefully) 2024.

Oh what a beautiful morning
Oh what a beautiful day
I’ve got a wonderful feeling
Everything’s going America’s way.

Keep winning Mr. President!

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Sexual Violence and Mental Health Illness Plague America’s Universities

A good way to pick up the intellectual trends in vogue at American Universities is to browse the web pages of the top 20 private national universities as ranked by U.S. News & World Report.

Diversity and Inclusion (sometimes also Equity) is the overwhelming topic on every campus.  Each university shouts from the rooftop its success in increasing the Diversity of its undergraduate student body.  Only 2-3 top 20 schools still have a non-Hispanic White majority.  Soon there will be none.

The effort has now shifted to Diversifying graduate students, faculties, staff, and top administrators.  It will take time before the current pipeline of Diverse graduate students completes their doctoral degrees and joins the faculties and rise through the administrative ranks to become presidents and provosts.

Diversity and Inclusion are moving at the speed of  bullet trains.  Anyone who stands in the way will be run over.  Anyone who fails to get on board or stands on the platform watching the train go by has a dim, perhaps no, future as a professor or administrator in tertiary education.

University officials are focusing on two more recent concerns--sexual violence and mental health.  Climate (sexual violence) surveys are ubiquitous.  Past surveys have revealed alarming levels of sexual violence against women.  In response, universities have expanded reporting, treatment, and adjudicating offices.

No top 20 university is even remotely considering returning to single-sex dorms and chaperoned parties.  Given the statements universities frequently release about sexual violence, it’s a wonder than millions of female students apply to universities and pay tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to put themselves in grave danger of sexual violence.

Mental health illness is the most recent problem gripping undergraduate students.  The exponential increase in mental health illness occurred at midnight on November 8, 2016, when Donald Trump was declared the next president of the United States.  Universities rushed to set up counseling centers to help undergraduates survive the night and the next few weeks and months.  Just as students began to recover from the trauma of Donald Trump, the months-long confirmation process of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court pushed many students back over the edge.  Now they are stuck with both.

Student councils are adopting resolutions asking university officials to improve mental health facilities and services for students.

This may indeed be a good time to enhance mental health care in colleges and universities.  Students attending these schools are disproportionately left-liberal in political orientation.  If President Trump wins a second term in 2020, every campus will be overwhelmed with a surge in mental health illness among the students.

Universities may be partly culpable for the plague of sexual violence and mental health illness.  They talk about it every day, telling students to come forward and/or seek help.  Students having trouble keeping up with classwork may be persuaded that they need mental health counseling.  Female students may be afraid to go to the library or gym in the evening.

Most university presidents, provosts, and deans are hoping for Democrats to win control of the House of Representatives in the November 6, 2018, elections.  Winning the Senate too is probably beyond their wildest dreams.  But winning the House will give students and officials hope that Democrats will win the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2020.  Such an outcome, more than therapy, will reduce mental health problems on campus.  If the next president is a woman, fears of sexual violence will also diminish.

PS.  In the 1950s and 1960s, coeds had to sign out and in of their dorms between 7:30-10:30 pm on weekdays and 7:30-12:30 on weekends.  Overnight stays away from the dorm required parental permission.  The rule was in loco parentis.  There were probably some instances of sexual violence, but I do not recall reading a single story in the student newspaper during my undergraduate years, nor do I recall hearing a single story from male or female fellow students.

PSS.  Times change.  That was then.  This is now.

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

U.S Foreign Policy Faces Grave Danger, Part 4

Separatist movements are active movements with living, active members that seek greater autonomy or self-determination for a geographic region.  Some movements have de facto autonomy, which makes them a de facto (breakaway) state.  Some are proposed states that have a name for a seceding sovereign state.  Some are proposing autonomous areas that seek greater autonomy, but not outright secession.  Some movements are driven (largely) by ethnic identity, others by political ideologies or pressure groups.

This posts enumerates ethnic identity secessionist movements, listing country, ethnic group(s) seeking statehood, and name of proposed state.  (Wikipedia)

Africa (23)

Algeria.  Kabyle people.  Republic of Kabylia
Angola
     Lunda-Tchokwe People.  Democratic Republic of Lunda-Tchokwe.
     Cabindans,  Republic of Cabinda.
Cameroon.  The Anglophones of the NW and SW regions of Cameroon.
     The Federal Republic of Ambazonia.
Central African Republic.  Muslims in CAR.  Republic of Logone.
Equatorial Guinea.  Bubi.  Bioko Island.
Libya.  Toubu.  Tubouland.
Mali.  Tuareg, Songhai, Fula, and Arabs/Moors.  Azawad.
Morocco. 
     Sahrawi.  Sahrawi Aran Democratic Republic.
     Riffian.  Rif.
Namibia.  Lozi.  Free State of Caprivi Strip/Itenge.
Niger.  Tuareg.  Agadez.
Rwanda.  Twa.  Batwaland.
Senegal.  Diola.  Casamance.
Somalia.  Somali.  Somilaland.
South Africa.  Afrikaners.  Volkstaat.
Spain.  Canarians.  Canary Islands.
Sudan.  Fur, Zghawe, Masalit.  Darfur.
Tanzania.  Swahili.  Zanzibar.
Uganda.
     Ganda.  Kingdom of Buganda.
     Konjo People.  Yiira Republic.
Zambia.  Lozi.  Barotseland.
Zimbabwe.  Matabele.  Matabeleland.

Asia (49)

Burma (Myanmar).
     Arakan.  Arakan Federation.
     Chin.  Republic of Zo Asia.
     Kachin.  Kachinland.
     Karen.  Republic of Kawthoolei.
     Karenni.  United Karenni Independent States.
     Mon.  Mon State.
     Rohingya.  Northern Arakan State of Arakan Federation.
     Shan.  Federated Shan States.
     Wa.  Wa State.
     Kuki.  Zale’n-gam
     Zomi.  Republic of Zogam
China.
     Mongolian.  Republic of South Mongolia.
     Tibetan.  Tibet.
     Uyghur.  East Turkestan.
India.
     Kashmiri Muslims.  Kashmir.
     Naga People.  People’s Republic of Nagaland.
     Tripuri People.  Tripuri.
     Meitei People.  Manipur.
     Assamese People.  Assam.
     Bodo People.  Bodoland.
     Kamatapuri lects.  Kamtur.
Iran.
     Azerbaijani.  South Azerbaijan.
     Turkmen.  South Turkmenistan.
     Arabs.  Al-Ahwaz.
     Kurdish.  Kurdistan.
     Baloch  Balochistan.
Iraq.
     Kurdish.  Kurdistan.
     Turkmen.  Turkmeneli.
Japan.
     Ainu.  Republic of Ainu.
     Ryukyuan.  Republic of Ryukyu.
Laos.  Hmong.  Hmong ChaoFa Federated States.
Nepal.  Madhesi Peoples.  Madhesh.
Pakistan.
     Baloch.  Balochistan.
     Sindhi.  Sindhudesh.
     Balti People.  Balawaristan.
Philippines.  Moro.  Bangsomoro Republik.
Russia.
     Yakuts.  Sakha Republic.
     Tuvans.  Tuva.
Sri Lanka.  Tamils.  Tamil Eelam.
Syria.
     Druze.  Jabal Druze State.
     Arameans.  Aram.
     Assyrian.  Assyria.
     Syrian Turkmen.  Babirbucak and Northern Aleppo.
Tajikistan.  Pamiri.  United Badakhshan Peoples Republic.
Thailand.  Malays.  Greater Patani State.
Turkwy.  Kurdish.  Kurdistan.
Uzbekistan.  Karakapaks.  Republic of Karakalpakstan.
Yemen.
     Adeni Arabs.  South Arabia (State of Aden)
     Hadhrami Arabs.  Kathiri, Qu’aiti, Wahidi Balhaf, Mahra.

Europe (50)

Belgium
    Flemish Dutch.  Flanders
     Walloons.  Walloon Republic.
Denmark.  Faroese.  Faroe Islands.
Finland.  Aland swedes.  Aland.
France.
     Basque People.  Unification with Basque Country.
     Bretons.  Brittany.
     Corsicans.  Corsica.
     Savoyans.  Savoy.
     Occitans People.  Occitania.
     Provencals.  Provence.
     Alsatians.  Alsace.
     Normans.  Normandy.
Germany.  Bavarians.  Free State of Bavaria.
Italy.
     Friulans.  Friuli.
     Ligures.  Republic of Genoa.
     Lombards.  Republic of Lombardy.
     Southern Italians.  Ausonia.
     Northern Italians.  Padania.
     Sardinians.  Republic of Sardinia.
     Siciians,  Sicily.
     South Tyroleans.  Unification with Tyrol Austria.
     Venetians.  Republic of Venice.
Moldova.  Gagauz People.  Republic of Gagauzia.
Poland.  Silesians.  Silesia.
Russia.  Karelians.  Karelia.
Spain.
     Andalusian.  Andalusia.
     Aragonese.  Aragon.
     Asturians.  Asturias.
     Baleariacs-Catalanics (those with Catalan Ancestry).  Balearic Islands.
     Basques.  Basque Country.
     Canarians.  Republic of the Canary Islands.
     Cantabrians.  Cantabria.
     Castillians.  Castile.
     Catalans.  Catalan Republic.
     Galicians.  Galicia.
     Leonese.  Leonese Country.
     Navarran.  Unification with Basque Country.
     Valencians-Catalanics (those with Catalan Ancestry).  Kingdom of Valencia.
     Extremadurans.  Extremadura.
     Murcians.  Murcia.
Switzerland.
     Jurassien.  Free State of Jura.
     Ticinesi (Italian-speaking).  Unification with Lombardy.
United Kingdom.
     Cornish.  Cornwall.
     English.  England.
     Irish.  Reunification with Republic of Ireland.
     Ulster Scots.  Uster.
     Scots.  Scotland.
     Shetlanders.  Unification with Norway.
     Welsh.  Wales.
     Manx.  Isle of Man.

North America (6)

Denmark.  Greenlanders.  Greenland.
Nicaragua.  Miskito.  Communitarian Nation of Moskitia.
United States.
     Lakotah.  Republic of Lakota.
     Puerto Rican.  Puerto Rico.
French Overseas Departments.
     Martinican.  Republic of Martinique.
     Guadeloupean.  Guadeloupe.

(Note.  Provincial independence movements in Canada and State independence movements in the U.S. are largely territorial, not ethnic or racial.)

Oceania (8)

Australia
     Torres Strait Islanders.  Torres Strait Islands.
     Norfolk Islanders.  Norfolk Isand.
Chile.  Rapa Nui.  Rape Nui.
Fiji.  Rotuman.  Rotuma.
French Overseas Departments.
     New Caledonia.  Kanaks.  Kanaky.
New Zealand.
     Ariki.  Sovereign Kingdom of the Cook Islands.
     Maori.  Republic of New Zealand.
United States.
     Hawaiians.  Create native Hawaiian nations equal to Native American nations.

South America (4)

Argentina.  Mapuche People.  Es:Wallmapu.
Bolivia.  Aymara.  Collasyu.
Chile.  Mapuche People.  Es:Wallmapu.
Columbia.  Raizal People.  San Andres y Providencia.

Africa (23)

Algeria.  Kabyle people.  Republic of Kabylia
Angola
     Lunda-Tchokwe People.  Democratic Republic of Lunda-Tchokwe.
     Cabindans,  Republic of Cabinda.
Cameroon.  The Anglophones of the NW and SW regions of Cameroon.
     The Federal Republic of Ambazonia.
Central African Republic.  Muslims in CAR.  Republic of Logone.
Equatorial Guinea.  Bubi.  Bioko Island.
Libya.  Toubu.  Tubouland.
Mali.  Tuareg, Songhai, Fula, and Arabs/Moors.  Azawad.
Morocco. 
     Sahrawi.  Sahrawi Aran Democratic Republic.
     Riffian.  Rif.
Namibia.  Lozi.  Free State of Caprivi Strip/Itenge.
Niger.  Tuareg.  Agadez.
Rwanda.  Twa.  Batwaland.
Senegal.  Diola.  Casamance.
Somalia.  Somali.  Somilaland.
South Africa.  Afrikaners.  Volkstaat.
Spain.  Canarians.  Canary Islands.
Sudan.  Fur, Zghawe, Masalit.  Darfur.
Tanzania.  Swahili.  Zanzibar.
Uganda.
     Ganda.  Kingdom of Buganda.
     Konjo People.  Yiira Republic.
Zambia.  Lozi.  Barotseland.
Zimbabwe.  Matabele.  Matabeleland.

Asia (49)

Burma (Myanmar).
     Arakan.  Arakan Federation.
     Chin.  Republic of Zo Asia.
     Kachin.  Kachinland.
     Karen.  Republic of Kawthoolei.
     Karenni.  United Karenni Independent States.
     Mon.  Mon State.
     Rohingya.  Northern Arakan State of Arakan Federation.
     Shan.  Federated Shan States.
     Wa.  Wa State.
     Kuki.  Zale’n-gam
     Zomi.  Republic of Zogam
China.
     Mongolian.  Republic of South Mongolia.
     Tibetan.  Tibet.
     Uyghur.  East Turkestan.
India.
     Kashmiri Muslims.  Kashmir.
     Naga People.  People’s Republic of Nagaland.
     Tripuri People.  Tripuri.
     Meitei People.  Manipur.
     Assamese People.  Assam.
     Bodo People.  Bodoland.
     Kamatapuri lects.  Kamtur.
Iran.
     Azerbaijani.  South Azerbaijan.
     Turkmen.  South Turkmenistan.
     Arabs.  Al-Ahwaz.
     Kurdish.  Kurdistan.
     Baloch  Balochistan.
Iraq.
     Kurdish.  Kurdistan.
     Turkmen.  Turkmeneli.
Japan.
     Ainu.  Republic of Ainu.
     Ryukyuan.  Republic of Ryukyu.
Laos.  Hmong.  Hmong ChaoFa Federated States.
Nepal.  Madhesi Peoples.  Madhesh.
Pakistan.
     Baloch.  Balochistan.
     Sindhi.  Sindhudesh.
     Balti People.  Balawaristan.
Philippines.  Moro.  Bangsomoro Republik.
Russia.
     Yakuts.  Sakha Republic.
     Tuvans.  Tuva.
Sri Lanka.  Tamils.  Tamil Eelam.
Syria.
     Druze.  Jabal Druze State.
     Arameans.  Aram.
     Assyrian.  Assyria.
     Syrian Turkmen.  Babirbucak and Northern Aleppo.
Tajikistan.  Pamiri.  United Badakhshan Peoples Republic.
Thailand.  Malays.  Greater Patani State.
Turkwy.  Kurdish.  Kurdistan.
Uzbekistan.  Karakapaks.  Republic of Karakalpakstan.
Yemen.
     Adeni Arabs.  South Arabia (State of Aden)
     Hadhrami Arabs.  Kathiri, Qu’aiti, Wahidi Balhaf, Mahra.

Europe (50)

Belgium
    Flemish Dutch.  Flanders
     Walloons.  Walloon Republic.
Denmark.  Faroese.  Faroe Islands.
Finland.  Aland swedes.  Aland.
France.
     Basque People.  Unification with Basque Country.
     Bretons.  Brittany.
     Corsicans.  Corsica.
     Savoyans.  Savoy.
     Occitans People.  Occitania.
     Provencals.  Provence.
     Alsatians.  Alsace.
     Normans.  Normandy.
Germany.  Bavarians.  Free State of Bavaria.
Italy.
     Friulans.  Friuli.
     Ligures.  Republic of Genoa.
     Lombards.  Republic of Lombardy.
     Southern Italians.  Ausonia.
     Northern Italians.  Padania.
     Sardinians.  Republic of Sardinia.
     Siciians,  Sicily.
     South Tyroleans.  Unification with Tyrol Austria.
     Venetians.  Republic of Venice.
Moldova.  Gagauz People.  Republic of Gagauzia.
Poland.  Silesians.  Silesia.
Russia.  Karelians.  Karelia.
Spain.
     Andalusian.  Andalusia.
     Aragonese.  Aragon.
     Asturians.  Asturias.
     Baleariacs-Catalanics (those with Catalan Ancestry).  Balearic Islands.
     Basques.  Basque Country.
     Canarians.  Republic of the Canary Islands.
     Cantabrians.  Cantabria.
     Castillians.  Castile.
     Catalans.  Catalan Republic.
     Galicians.  Galicia.
     Leonese.  Leonese Country.
     Navarran.  Unification with Basque Country.
     Valencians-Catalanics (those with Catalan Ancestry).  Kingdom of Valencia.
     Extremadurans.  Extremadura.
     Murcians.  Murcia.
Switzerland.
     Jurassien.  Free State of Jura.
     Ticinesi (Italian-speaking).  Unification with Lombardy.
United Kingdom.
     Cornish.  Cornwall.
     English.  England.
     Irish.  Reunification with Republic of Ireland.
     Ulster Scots.  Uster.
     Scots.  Scotland.
     Shetlanders.  Unification with Norway.
     Welsh.  Wales.
     Manx.  Isle of Man.

North America (6)

Denmark.  Greenlanders.  Greenland.
Nicaragua.  Miskito.  Communitarian Nation of Moskitia.
United States.
     Lakotah.  Republic of Lakota.
     Puerto Rican.  Puerto Rico.
French Overseas Departments.
     Martinican.  Republic of Martinique.
     Guadeloupean.  Guadeloupe.

(Note.  Provincial independence movements in Canada and State independence movements in the U.S. are largely territorial, not ethnic or racial.)

Oceania (8)

Australia
     Torres Strait Islanders.  Torres Strait Islands.
     Norfolk Islanders.  Norfolk Isand.
Chile.  Rapa Nui.  Rape Nui.
Fiji.  Rotuman.  Rotuma.
French Overseas Departments.
     New Caledonia.  Kanaks.  Kanaky.
New Zealand.
     Ariki.  Sovereign Kingdom of the Cook Islands.
     Maori.  Republic of New Zealand.
United States.
     Hawaiians.  Create native Hawaiian nations equal to Native American nations.

South America (4)

Argentina.  Mapuche People.  Es:Wallmapu.
Bolivia.  Aymara.  Collasyu.
Chile.  Mapuche People.  Es:Wallmapu.
Columbia.  Raizal People.  San Andres y Providencia.

This list of 150 active secessionist movements seeking sovereign statehood excludes a small number of breakaway regions that are de facto sovereign states.  It also excludes well over another hundred plus active movements seeking greater autonomy within a sovereign state.  Any of the latter has the potential to intensify into a secessionist movement.

Summary

The number of sovereign, largely Homogeneous and Exclusive (H&E), states amounts to 196.  To this should be added 150 active H&E movements seeking statehood. Including breakaway de facto states puts the total number past 360.  Diversity and Inclusion in the United States is the outlier in the character of sovereign statehood.

As previously stated, demographic change has transformed the U.S. from an overwhelmingly White population to a plural society, in which no ethnic or racial group will be a majority by 2045.  Hyphenated-Americans of different backgrounds will have to live together in a single sovereign state for the foreseeable future.

The great challenge will be if Americans, whose life experiences are dominated by Diversity and Inclusion, will be able to successfully interact with the residents in hundreds of Homogenous and Exclusive countries and regions, whose collective lives are defined by borders, language and culture.

One can envisage a future in which Americans will have the concept of Homogeneous and Exclusive deemed heretical and drummed out of their consciousness.  How will they be able to understand and interact with H&E countries?