“This is not entirely accurate. The common feature with all empires is colonization... for loot, dominance, territory, etc...actually for any number of reasons.
The US never had the kind of expansive ‘empire’ like the author suggests (Rome, Britain, etc.)”
Really? Then what was the point of “manifest destiny”?
I don’t know.
But I always associate the concept of Empire with a single and un-elected leader who assumes lifetime rule (displacing legitimate leaders either by force or plebiscite) and/or a monarchic leadership (also an un-elected, usually hereditary, dynastic arrangement).
Also, Empire suggests, in my thinking, the utter exploitation of people and resources subject to colonial dominion...with no hope or guarantee of representation at any point in the process.