The political philosopher Isaiah Berlin classified thinkers into two general types: hedgehogs, who perceive the world through a single ideological lens, and foxes, who derive understanding from diverse experiences and ideas. Joseph Parent’s book, Uniting States: Voluntary Union in World Politics, suggests that he is a paradigmatic hedgehog. Starting with his acknowledgement of influence from Realist luminaries including Robert Art, James Fearon, Robert Jervis, John Mearsheimer, Steve Walt, and Ken Waltz, Parent provides his first clue to the type of explanatory analysis he will undertake. The first paragraph in Chapter 1 then implies that security and military action causes political outcomes, which makes clear Parent’s Realist perspective that views unification as a predominantly threat-driven process. While very interesting and commendable for his use of historical case studies to explore political phenomena, Parent’s arguments unsuccessfully “shed light on federalism, identity formation, and how to escape anarchy.” He takes four disparate cases and attempts to show similarities that only become apparent if viewed through Parent’s single lens, and with blinders. In my opinion, his shortcomings stem from critical flaws associated with his lack of explanation regarding the distinctions between types of union, limited examples resulting from a contrived definition of voluntary unification, and his highly selective use of history which omits relevant details in order to support his thesis. I briefly explore these issues in the comments that follow. Parent notes that unions involve a transition from anarchy to hierarchy, the latter of which he describes as a situation with reliable third-party enforcement – of what exactly he does not clearly state. He describes an environmental spectrum defined by anarchy at one end and hierarchy at the other. Moving along the spectrum from anarchy, states first unify in alliances, then confederation, followed by federation, and finally unitary states. Parent asserts the existence of a threshold of unification somewhere between confederation and federation. However, he does not clearly state where exactly this point exists. Confederations are usually a union of sovereign states acting in common for specific purposes. Typically created by a treaty, they tend to be established to coordinate critical collective issues such as defense, foreign relations, or trade. The nature of the relationship among the member states and the general government, as well as the distribution of power, varies considerably. Federation, on the other hand, is characterized by a union of partially self-governing states under a central government. The self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, are typically constitutionally entrenched. The difference between confederated and federated states are matters of degree, not type. Lastly, a unitary state is one with a single, centralized national government that retains all sovereign authority. Parent’s lack of specificity about the types of unions and their degrees of difference masks the fact all of his cases were already voluntary unions. The US and Switzerland were unified confederations that ultimately became federations. Sweden and Norway were neither, and Parent notes their union more closely resembled an alliance, and both subsequently became unitary states. Gran Columbia appears to have been an alliance in opposition to Spanish rule or, at best, it might be considered a loose confederation established for collective defense. The states that formed following Gran Columbia’s dissolution ranged from federation to unitary states. These circumstances show Parent’s cases
…show more content…
He does not, however, include Alexander Hamilton’s assessment contained within Federalist #8, which specifically addressed national defense. Hamilton wrote, “Europe is at a great distance from us. Her colonies in our vicinity will be likely to continue too much disproportioned in strength to be able to give us any dangerous annoyance. Extensive military establishments cannot, in this position, be necessary to our security. But if we should be disunited, and the integral parts should either remain separated, or, which is most probable, should be thrown together into two or three confederacies, we should be, in a short course of time, in the predicament of the continental powers of Europe --our liberties would be a prey to the means of defending ourselves against the ambition and jealousy of each other.” This makes it clear that internal, not external, threats were the main security concern of the new
He does not, however, include Alexander Hamilton’s assessment contained within Federalist #8, which specifically addressed national defense. Hamilton wrote, “Europe is at a great distance from us. Her colonies in our vicinity will be likely to continue too much disproportioned in strength to be able to give us any dangerous annoyance. Extensive military establishments cannot, in this position, be necessary to our security. But if we should be disunited, and the integral parts should either remain separated, or, which is most probable, should be thrown together into two or three confederacies, we should be, in a short course of time, in the predicament of the continental powers of Europe --our liberties would be a prey to the means of defending ourselves against the ambition and jealousy of each other.” This makes it clear that internal, not external, threats were the main security concern of the new