Lots of lefties, and even some supposed "conservatives," (i.e., Buchanan), claim the US is already an "empire." It's hogwash, of course, unless you redefine the word "empire" to mean what New Yorkers mean by "The Empire State" -- just a metaphor or school mascot, nothing to do with serious reality.
Yes, 100 years ago, the US had a real "empire," including the Philippines, Puerto Rico and some Pacific Islands, some of which remain part of the US today. But that's not what our critics are talking about.
Finally, we should note the word has long been used metaphorically, going back even to George Washington, who referred to the newly constituted thirteen United States as "our empire."
Point is: when we talk about an "American Empire," we need to be clear as to which sense of the word we mean.
Rome was effectively an empire well before the transition was made de jure. The USA has been effectively an empire since WWII. It is not something to fault America for. The alternative does not involve survival as a nation. The transition to de jure empire will include wholesale loss of rights but not necessarily of freedoms. The government may leave us all alone to do our business but there would no longer be any “rights.” Freedoms would be purely at government sufferance. In that case we would be far better off as a real Big Business Oligarchy than as a Democracy derived Bureaucracy. Bureaucratic totalitarianism is more likely in the cards.
Well put.