Uncomfortable Thoughts: What if empire is the only choice we have?
Note: see here http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-blog-feature-uncomfortable-thoughts.html for the rules and disclaimer of this blog feature.
In a previous post I argued that the United States, in spite of the "imperialist" insult, is not an empire by the accepted definition. http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-blog-feature-uncomfortable-thoughts.html
"Webster’s revised unabridged dictionary (© 1996, 1998 MICRA Inc.) defines empire as:
n 1: the domain ruled by an emperor or empress 2: a group of countries under a single authority; "the British empire" 3: a monarchy with an emperor as head of state 4: a group of diverse companies under common ownership and run as a single organization
and imperialism:
n 1: a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries 2: a political orientation that advocates imperial interests 3: any instance of aggressive extension of authority.
"By the standard definition, the US is not an empire. It is neither a monarchy nor is it a group of countries, but a single country with a recognized common culture whose legislators are chosen from every region of the country without any legal qualifications of ethnicity, religion or even native birth. By the second definition of empire (and ignoring the pejorative connotations of the word) there are only two countries of any size in the world today that match the definition: Russia and India.
"As for creating an empire, after an initial period of expansion into almost empty territory[1], the US appears to have reached the limit of its territorial enlargement, the last being a few island possessions taken from the Empire of Japan at the end of WWII. And in these cases, the US grants a huge measure of local autonomy (for example the local laws of Guam are not subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court) and has made it plain that they can have complete independence any time they ask for it."
In a previous post I argued that the United States, in spite of the "imperialist" insult, is not an empire by the accepted definition. http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-blog-feature-uncomfortable-thoughts.html
"Webster’s revised unabridged dictionary (© 1996, 1998 MICRA Inc.) defines empire as:
n 1: the domain ruled by an emperor or empress 2: a group of countries under a single authority; "the British empire" 3: a monarchy with an emperor as head of state 4: a group of diverse companies under common ownership and run as a single organization
and imperialism:
n 1: a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries 2: a political orientation that advocates imperial interests 3: any instance of aggressive extension of authority.
"By the standard definition, the US is not an empire. It is neither a monarchy nor is it a group of countries, but a single country with a recognized common culture whose legislators are chosen from every region of the country without any legal qualifications of ethnicity, religion or even native birth. By the second definition of empire (and ignoring the pejorative connotations of the word) there are only two countries of any size in the world today that match the definition: Russia and India.
"As for creating an empire, after an initial period of expansion into almost empty territory[1], the US appears to have reached the limit of its territorial enlargement, the last being a few island possessions taken from the Empire of Japan at the end of WWII. And in these cases, the US grants a huge measure of local autonomy (for example the local laws of Guam are not subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court) and has made it plain that they can have complete independence any time they ask for it."
posted by Steve @ 5:19 AM
2 Comments:
At 10:33 AM,
Evanston2 said…
Traditional emperialism brings far-flung obligations and always stretches a power too thin.
America is doing just fine with our modus operandi, "cultural imperialism." We are the masters of change. We establish our cultural emperialism via relatively open politics (freedom of speech, etc.) and economics (capitalism). Other nations try to undermine us by dumping propaganda, bribes, and underpriced goods into our system but competing with these varied influences has kept us sharp.
Conversely, those nations that try to dump on us are exposed to our ways and over time this undermines their authority (as we discussed regarding the fall of the Iron Curtain). The major exception to this is religion -- while Christianity continues to spread of its own accord, it is not an American phenomenon. One can sample American culture for years and have little direct exposure to this religion. Nonetheless, America's cultural empire continues to grow with every wave of change (English has taken over every professional field, by steps) with very few overseas obligations.
Yes, we pay the largest share of costs to keep the "lines of communication" (such as sealanes) secure while others are free riders, but this also gives us real leverage (as opposed to the illusory "soft power" so loved by Europeans that collapses when challenged by hard power). By not holding on to a large geographic empire, we are free to choose the time and place of our wars. Sure, sometimes our choices are questionable but they are better than what happened to the Romans and UK, etc. when even small enemies can challenge them at weak points at a time of their opponent's choosing (e.g., the Boer War) or be spread too thin to stop a strong opponent (e.g., Japan vs. UK).
We are doing fine. Our big weakness is actually energy dependence. We need to open ANWR, get over our squeamishness regarding nukes and require autos to be multi-fuel capable. We do not need an empire. Look at the former colonial powers -- they are evidence enough of the "down" side of empire. Their former colonies are not profitable but an endless source of guilt (to be compensated for in cash) and immigration that undermines what were (relatively) successful cultures.
At 1:30 PM,
Brian Dunbar said…
We are the masters of change. We establish our cultural emperialism via relatively open politics (freedom of speech, etc.) and economics (capitalism). Other nations try to undermine us by dumping propaganda, bribes, and underpriced goods into our system but competing with these varied influences has kept us sharp.
Ralph Peters .. is that you?
No, I mean that in a good way.
Post a Comment
<< Home