To even state my thesis, one has to accept a premise that is arguable, in and of itself.
And that is, the nation-state is an outdated concept in the information age, and will become extinct sooner or later as increasingly mobile world populations succumb to their natural human curiosity and attraction to people who are different from themselves and intermingle/ intermarry to the extent that the concept of "race" is banished forever.
Paradoxically, the subsequent generations begat as a result of the sexual attraction to physical differences will produce a human race that, at least in physical appearance, will begin to eliminate the very differences that were the initial inspiration leading to the increased homogeneity of human beings in the first place.
The concurrent spread of the internet and other media will only hasten the spread of a more and more homogenized culture to match the blending of racial characteristics in humans.
Indeed, that these twin phenomena of human physical and cultural homogeneity have already begun to be visible to the naked eye, appear to bolster my thesis.
And that is, the World is in the initial throes of a process that will lead to the end of the nation-state as we know it.
Now, I am not saying necessarily that the end of the nation-state as we know it is necessarily a good thing. I am not suggesting that it is a bad thing.
I am just suggesting that we are on a path that will eventually (and this could easily take several centuries to complete, or only a few. Who knows?)result in a complete restructuring the systems by which people interact politically, socially and culturally.
If you accept my thesis, and especially if you are able to step back and take a longer view of history, you might begin to see the "right vs Left" struggle in the context of this changing face of humanity.
The Civil Rights Struggle, as an example was the endgame of racial segregation. The Left won that battle,and while racism certainly did not end, segregation has been ended at least to a growing number of minority members of society who now live in integrated cities and suburbs.
One can observe the blending of white and black youth culture. In my day, the 1960s and 1970s, the major area of common ground between white and black kids was sports, music and that was about it. For the most part, black and white kids and hispanic kids, socialized apart. A white kid who tried to mimic a black kid would be openly ridiculed by both black and white kids.
Today, white kids and black kids largely dress the same, talk the same and listen to the same music. In integrated cities, elementary school kids seem oblivious to the polyglot clothes and cultures brought to school by their friends.
A white kid can dress, talk and make music that copies black culture almost perfectly, and is not only not ridiculed by either race, but is celebrated by both whites and blacks, if he has the talent. Indeed, his career is developed, managed and nourished largely by black, not by white, businessmen.
A kid of mixed Asian and Black racial background can turn his genius for one sport into a culture of celebrity unseen since the last nonwhite genius of sport, Muhammad Ali, and without any residual controversy, or counterattack from the "right."
Perhaps this is because the new celebrity is also attached to an economic engine that produces outsized profits for many wealthy investors of shoe companies, clothing companies, sporting goods companies, etc.
Ali made a lot of money fighting, but he was never wealthy at all by today's standards of celebrity wealth. And at the time, this was an important part of his appeal, especially to the world's poor, not to mention the US poor.
Today, Tiger Woods faces no such obstacle. It seems perfectly acceptable by everyone from Jesse Jackson to Jesse Helms that he become as wealthy or wealthier than the oldest monied families of the European descended aristocracy
[Have to go to work now] to be continued....