John Fonte’s “Sovereignty or Submission”: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled By Others, book review by Stanley Kurtz, from Sep 2011. This applies to Australia too.
In his foreword to the book, former NATIONAL REVIEW editor-in-chief John O’Sullivan compares Fonte to Edmund Burke, whose early warnings about the French Revolution were poorly appreciated until the outbreak of the Terror.
Fonte’s book names, outlines, and dissects a movement of international elites that seeks to place the heretofore sovereign decisions of democratic nation-states under the authority of international standards and bodies answerable to nobody — no one but international elites, that is.
Particularly in America, the global governance movement offers a way for liberals to invoke the help of European progressives to impose policy solutions on the United States that could never be achieved by democratic means.
Brexit, Trump, and so on are a reaction to this.
Essentially, the global governance movement is an attempt to extend the “pooling of sovereignty” that characterizes the European Union to the rest of the world–America above all. Global governancers see America, along with countries like Israel and India, as stubborn hold-outs for supposedly dated notions of national independence.
If the party of global governance can ensnare America, Gulliver-style, in a tangle of transnational principles, precedents, and institutions, American military independence can effectively be nullified, and even our domestic policies can be brought into conformity with European norms in time.
If this seems unlikely, consider that the EU’s ruling bureaucratic elite has already captured a significant portion of the sovereign powers of its member states, although that elite is largely unanswerable to any voting public. …
Takeover by stealth:
Another secret of the global governance movement’s success is its rhetorical reticence. Since the public here and in Europe would almost certainly vote down most of what global governancers hope to achieve, their strategy is, in O’Sullivan’s words “decidedly covert.” Soothing euphemisms like “global governance” (instead of “world government”) and “pooling sovereignty” (instead of negating or undermining sovereignty) are part of the program.
It spells the end of the Enlightenment, democracy, and the cultural characteristics that propelled the West to such success in the last two centuries:
Fonte argues that, left unopposed, the global governance movement could bring about a kind of slow-motion suicide of conventional liberal democracy in the West.
Typically, the global elite’s critique of the book mainly relies on scorn and name calling, is tendentious, and attacks several straw men.