Novel sentiments aside, “World citizen” is used as a badge of empathy that carries no responsibilities. The more it’s used, though, the more it dilutes actual national citizenship, which naturally takes second place to World Citizenship.
That pretty much sums it up. No responsibility for action but plenty of obvious feel-good empathy. And funny enough, it is only Europeans and their admirers here in America who define that attitude as "world" citizenship. You don't hear too many Chinese or Indians spouting such nonsense, lopping off a third of the globe right there for that category of citizenry.
So just when are the world's citizenry going to get around to saving Darfur? Or Tibet? Or Burma?
But I digress.
Look, it is no surprise that plenty of Americans are all thrilled about such global nonsense. We have plenty of Europeans-at-heart in America who define this attitude as the world's standard. It's all about doing nothing until the most pacifistic Belgian is convinced to take action, while in the meantime holding lots of conferences that issue weighty reports on the problem every few years documenting the descent into hell for some particular group of citizens in the world.
But joining the world isn't going to protect us. Heck, even Le Monde did not assert, for that fleeting moment after 9/11, that "we are all citizens of the world, now." Americans need to defend America, and defend the West that relies on us for protection, from that part of the world's citizens who'd slaughter us in our offices every day if they could.
Me? I'd seek protection not by groveling for help from the "citizens of the world" but by tapping into the pool of Americans-at-heart who inhabit every corner of the globe, who would defend our common values if only given the chance. The jihadis recruit from every country with Moslems. Why can't we recruit from all the West and those who aspire to enter the West?
