In one"s time the End of the Frontier era caused the Great Economical Depression of the United States of America and all other connected states. The rapid expansion of the Northern-American United States of its" economical, demographical and social system came in clash with the exhaustion of the Wild West territories. The obtained result expressed in the extremely hard recession of the Free Trading System. With usage of different tools, such as Roosevelt"s near-socialistic measures, the crisis was dealt. And, by the way, WWII and its" military-industrial tasks for standing economics. Let"s remember this.
And also let"s remember one phrase, which, as far as I keep it, was told by Churchill. He described the laws of the growth of military-industrial production during the war. He said: "The first year gives almost nothing, in the second the output is still insufficient, in the third front gets what it needs and in the fourth the output is much bigger than was demanded". And, I should add, in the fifth year you have your system crashing down or you are searching for some casus belli.
So the globalization came to the life of Humanity somewhere after beginning of the XX-th century. All meaningful territories of the Earth were opened and pegged among dominant powers. This meant the meeting with the limits of the growth of traditional expansion. After two devastating wars for the world"s repartition the Humano-system had found the first decision of globalization: the Third World War (else - the Cold War) between two great systems was being guided in a new style of arms race. In practice it meant that competition involved leading part of Humanity in the sphere of the very innovative progress. Together with the new and outstanding military technologies the Two Superpowers created a lot of horizons of intensive common progress. And more - the struggle opened the Space Era. The chances of Humanity in the early 60-es were fascinating. The stars were waiting. Both extensive and intensive ways seemed possible.
But by some ten years the situation changed - the Soviet Union failed in the Lunar Race and thus had lost its" future. After Lunar steps of Armstrong the USSR didn"t move to the Venus and in this situation the US didn"t move to the Mars. Again simple arm wrestling. Though the Great Innovative Trend was enough strong to give the people the computers and telecommunications. When Soviet Union suddenly disappeared and victorious superpower harshly pushed the rest actors the Globalization came again.
Now it has a new face. If initially the problem was mostly in the geographical area (The World Is Known) today the problem lays in quite another area. The World Is Connected. The speed of information, the intercrossing of migration waves, international corporations, losing on national sovereignty and all these things.
"What to do?" became the question for the decisive responsible groups of Europe and Northern America.
Taking into account practical impossibility of Space realization which is very inertial now we have:
1. Europe. Since the fall of the USSR leading actors here find it excessively the current US presence in the regional questions. That"s why two traditional enemies - French Republic and German Reich (which exists not only in the juridical sense) vastly accelerated their great integrative project of the European Union. This construct can give the United European States the whole complex of possibilities which can probably be compared with that of the Roman Empire. But together with the gifts the life of Union has demands and main of them is the loosing of national sovereignty. The United Europe isn"t the Great France or Great Denmark - it"s something supranational. People like Winston Churchill (in his time) and Jaque Shiraque clearly understand it. The main course of the French leader within European Union is to save the sources of power inside of French government and French laws. He"s not alone in it - though enough noticeable. Such positions make the general European Union policy very slow and indecisive - and very bureaucratic. Example - Macedonia. Almost nothing is done in the sphere of the United European Army - the key actor here is NATO with the US as the leader and Great Britain as the key but minor partner. Undoubtedly the "Euro" is the strong integrative advance - but the US dollar has some instruments to play with it. One of them was the war inside of modern Europe in Yugoslavia. European military abilities were far from their glorious past times. Also Europe has a lot of problems in the socio-cultural sphere: numerous immigrants erode national identities of the senescent euro-population. Radically but clearly this situation was shown by American figure Patrick Buchanan in his famous "The Death of the West". Europe has lost its" historical energy.
2. Northern America. The face of modern American Elite is George Bush, Dick Chaney and Donald Ramsfeld with their outwardly conservative policy. And such think tanks as Weekly Standard, National Review, Corporation RAND etc. While European elites are trying to find a consensus between liberal (actually social-democratic) and conservative points of view American elites have a bit another problem: what to do with a world dominance. The main debates are going about the limits of the US national interests but not about the principles of the state and democracy - which (as Fukuyama told) are final and unchangeable. The hawks (like Chaney, Bzhezinsky and others) see the United States as the new empire, responsible for every corner of the world. 11-th September was the card-blanch for them. Another group, which seems weaker now, prefere new style of isolationism - when America keeps only some key external points. But everybody agreed that US shouldn"t give any chance to any state or the group of states to overwhelm itself. This idea was openly expressed in the Conception of the National Security, issued by the Federal Government... The US also has the demographic problem - while the total population grows the number of real white Americans decreases - in the face of aggressive national and racial substrates. Negro Moslems, Latinos etc. Figures like Buchanan, Wallerstein and Hantington give different concepts of comprehending but no decisions. The global terrorism - which looks like the system answer for globalization - in this case is very suitable enemy - because the Fight has black-and-white logic of inevitability.
3. Some individual concepts:
Ј R. Scruton. British conservator. "The West and the Rest. Globalization and the terrorist threat. 2002." Political order has to provide the civilians with the sense of affiliation with a national territory. Especially, he opens the will of the US administration not to accept any international agreement hurting the sovereign national authority.
Ј M. Thatcher. "Statecraft. Strategies for a Changing World. 2002." She has no objections for the economical globalization, because it"s natural. But the attempts to suppress the national differences inside of artificial state are doomed to misfortune.
Ј G. O"Sallivan, American traditionalist. "Allegiances in a Multicultural Age. Discovering the dangers of worshipping tolerance. 2001." Multiculturalism leads to unnecessary cult of tolerance which by the sense is the threat to the feeling of the national unity and patriotism.
Ј J. Heider. Austrian right-wing-radical. Aggressive nationalism. Give Southern Tirol back.
Ј G. Phini. Former European neo-fascist. For integration, but against illegal migration.
Ј G. McKein. Opponent of G. Bush. The government should be restricted, but energetically execute global tasks.
Ј I. Kristol, N. Gleiser. Some American thinkers of conservative style.
Ј Kissinger. "Diplomacy." Rus. 1997. The US has to combine traditional balance of the forces and moral consensus of the global democracy principle.
Ј D. Brooks. American neo-conservator. "The Age of Conflict. Politics and Culture after September. The Weekly Standard. 2001".
Ј Concepts of modern global conservatism, as seen by Russian professor from Perm P.J.Rahshmir. A) interventional unilateralism (neo-cons) B) pragmatic multilateralism (traditional) C) isolationistic unilateralism (radical).