The Myth of the American Empire

Posted Dec 23, 2007 by mlh in Politics | 30 comments | 354 views

Donald Douglas penned a piece at the end of November 2007 entitled Putting the "American Empire" Meme to Rest. As I, Donald Douglas has grown weary of this meme but, I would add that it is an unsubstantiated meme and disingenuous.

The term is thrown around quite a bit in the American political scenes and elsewhere in the world. I find it pathetically curious. I also declare that the very thought of this American Empire meme is not only baseless but stems from a form of jealousy of the nation called The United States of America. Very few of the people in this world we live in called Earth complained about the Russian Empire - they called themselves that - and if it wasn't for the United States, Britain, by now, might very well have been the smallest province in the Russian Empire.

As I served my country under every American President since James Earl Carter up to and including President George W Bush, the folks we met which were in "conflict" with us did indeed whine about American Imperialism and at times mentioned the American Empire thing. That was to be expected. However, most of the folks we met that weren't in "conflict" with us, loved the United States and the American People.

If the American Empire does exist, why, then, do millions want to migrate here to America Proper? I have never met anyone that could justify the terms thrown around like "American Empire", "American Imperialism", "The World Hates America", "The World Opinion of America Is Poor" and similar terms which have been refuted and debunked by the shear numbers of people willing to die and/or kill to get to the United States.

I often ask people that rant and rave with the mentioned terms how many people are migrating out of the United States? During the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, we heard many a Hollywood Star declare that if GWB gets elected, they were going to leave the United States. Last I checked, they were still here. I guess they like the American Empire, limited to and relegated to the 48 States of CONUS, Alaska and Hawaii.

The piece I mentioned can be found at American Power and within the post, Donald Douglas refers to several other articles to which one can compare notes, as it were. The American Empire meme has been around for many years and nothing ever comes of it because it is baseless and untrue.

Jonah Goldberg has penned, as Donald Douglas states, an article which "offers a devastating rebuttal to the American empire debate..." and I agree. I have had these arguments before in various "higher education" classes and have always won.

Jonah Goldberg's piece is entitled, At peace with Pax Americana Does being the leader of the free world make the U.S. an empire?

For lack of a better word, the United States is getting tagged as an "empire" from all quarters. Indeed, it's been a century since the notion of an American empire got such wide circulation, and back then Washington truly had designs on such expansion. (Google "Spanish-American War" if you're unfamiliar with this period.)

The empire charge has long been a staple bit of rhetoric lobbed about by those on the political extremes -- and has even bubbled up in the presidential race. Lefty Rep. Dennis Kucinich insists that we must abandon "the ambitions of empire." Hyper-libertarian Rep. Ron Paul says that America could afford healthcare if we weren't paying the freight on "running a world empire." The word "empire" substitutes for an argument; there are no good empires, just as there are no good fascists, or racists, or dictators.

In recent years, however, there's been an attempt to rehabilitate the e-word. Historian and former Times columnist Niall Ferguson deserves primary credit for the mainstreaming of the empire debate with his 2004 book "Colossus." He faced the empire charge head-on, saying, in effect, "Yeah, so what's your point?" The world needs a stabilizing, decent watchman to keep the bad guys in check and to promote trade, he argued, and the United States is the best candidate for the job.

Ferguson concedes, however, that the American people don't want an empire, don't think that they have one, and even our elites have no idea how to run one. As David Frum noted at the time in the National Review, Ferguson "repeatedly complains that his particular fowl neither waddles nor quacks -- and yet he insists it is nevertheless a duck."

Even as he strives to rehabilitate the idea of empire, Ferguson acknowledges that the word has limitations. It "is irrevocably the language of a bygone age," he writes at the end of his book. It has become irretrievably synonymous with villainy.

Critics of American foreign policy point to the fact that the U.S. does many things that empires once did - police the seas, deploy militaries abroad, provide a lingua franca and a global currency - and then rest their case. But noting that X does many of the same things as Y does not mean that X and Y are the same thing. The police provide protection, and so does the Mafia. Orphanages raise children, but they aren't parents. If your wife cleans your home, tell her she's the maid because maids also clean homes. See how well that logic works.

When they speak of the American empire, critics fall back on cartoonish notions, invoking Hollywoodized versions of ancient Rome or mothballed Marxist caricatures of the British Raj. But unlike the Romans or even the British, our garrisons can be ejected without firing a shot. We left the Philippines when asked. We may split from South Korea in the next few years under similar circumstances. Poland wants our military bases; Germany is grumpy about losing them. When Turkey, a U.S. ally and member of NATO, refused to let American troops invade Iraq from its territory, the U.S. government said "fine." We didn't invade Iraq for oil (all we needed to do to buy it was lift the embargo), and we've made it clear that we'll leave Iraq if the Iraqis ask.

The second verse of the anti-imperial lament, sung in unison by liberals and libertarians, goes like this: Expansion of the military-industrial complex leads to contraction of freedom at home. But historically, this is a hard sell. Women got the vote largely thanks to World War I. President Truman, that consummate Cold Warrior, integrated the Army, and the civil rights movement escalated its successes even as we escalated the Cold War and our presence in Vietnam. President Reagan built up the military even as he liberalized the economy.

Sure Naomi Wolfe, Frank Rich and other leftists believe that the imperialistic war on terror has turned America into a police state. But if they were right, they wouldn't be allowed to say that.

Two compelling new books help explain why our "empire" is different from the Soviet or Roman varieties. Walter Russell Mead's encyclopedic "God and Gold" argues that Anglo-American culture is uniquely well suited toward globalism, military success, capitalism and liberty. Amy Chua's brilliant "Day of Empire" confirms why: Successful "hyperpowers" tend to be more tolerant and inclusive than their competitors. Despite its flaws, Britain was the first truly liberal empire.

America has picked up where the British left off. Whatever sway the U.S. holds over far-flung reaches of the globe is derived from the fact that we have been, and hopefully shall continue to be, the leader of the free world, offering help and guidance, peace and prosperity, where and when we can, as best we can, and asking little in return. If that makes us an empire, so be it. But I think "leader of the free world" is the only label we'll ever need or - one hopes - ever want.

Truer words have never been spoken on this topic. The rhetoric is all inclusive of the typical jealous ranters that we have what they don't so we are to just turn over everything we have to them to satiate their lust for more.

For further study of this meme, Victor Davis Hanson's piece is all very in tune and in touch.

Vote it up at Digital Journal