The European Union might be Barack Obama's model, as could the United Nations. In nominating his top campaign aide, Susan Rice, to be America's UN ambassador, Obama also announced his intention to raise the post to cabinet rank. In his book, "The Audacity of Hope," Obama wrote, "When the world's sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these rules are worth following."
In fact, the message it sends is that the ideas and ideals which made America unique in the world are no longer worth following, because in a one-world government, the United States would inevitably have to compromise its beliefs, laws, faith and everything else that makes it unique. European and Third World leaders would effectively be running the show. Barack Obama was elected president of the United States, not president of a world order, or worse, one of many equals among one of many nations that are nothing special.
It's bad enough to have the Democratic Congress dictating to Detroit and borrowing money from the Chinese to keep automakers afloat, as they make cars fewer people want. It would be something far worse to have a world body pass laws that require Americans to live by standards they would never choose for themselves.
Rachman concluded on an optimistic note. Noting that even within the EU, a one-world government remains unpopular, he wrote, "The world's most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen's political identity remains stubbornly local."
Maybe, but if we get too many "global" crises happening at once, the clamor for a one-world government to bring order, even at the expense of liberty, may be too strong for some politicians to resist.
So, yes, I'm starting to believe in the possibility of one-world government and it should be vigorously opposed if America, as we know it, is to be preserved.