The “Empire” Strikes Back. At peace with Pax Americana

NRO ^ | November 28, 2007 | Jonah Goldberg

[Tolik]

Just call us “leader of the free world.”

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 interested.)

The empire charge has long been a staple of the political extremes. It’s 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 we could afford health care if we weren’t running a “world empire.”

My problem is that the word “empire” usually 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 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 watchman to keep the bad guys in check and to promote trade, he argued, and America is the best candidate for the job.

Ferguson concedes that the American people don’t want an empire, don’t think that they have one, and that even our elites have no idea how to run one. As David Frum has noted, 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 the word’s limitations. It “is irrevocably the language of a bygone age,” he concludes. It’s become irretrievably synonymous with villainy.

America’s critics point out 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 us 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.

[Tolik]

Jonah Goldberg:

...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.

Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[goldstategop]

We're good imperialists - at selling America. The rest is just anti-American envy.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[griswold3]

The more I see Naomi Wolfe talk about her book, the more worried I am for her sanity.

[MNJohnnie]

When the Archbishop of Canterbury accused the US of pursing Imperialism in Iraq, Colin Powell supposedly said to the effect of this

During the last century the US has fought in many places for the freedom of many people. In the end, all we have ever asked from those people is enough land to bury our dead.

The notion that there is “An American Empire” is pure hysteric drivel screamed by idiot level IQs who have utterly no grasp of historic, or current, reality.

[MNJohnnie]

Considering how screwed up most of the rest of the world is, they should wish we were Imperialist.

For most of the third world, a colonial Govt run by the USA would be a massive improvement over the thugs and bandits they currently have running their governments.

[alloysteel]

Certainly America is the strangest empire the world has ever known. Other empires were satisfied with merely stripping the resources of the tribute lands, while returning little or nothing of value to the vassal state.

America has done it differently, or at least, they used to. Various territories, won from Spain after the Spanish-American war, like the Phillipines and Puerto Rico, were governed in such way they could begin to adopt the culture and heritage of the United States, but free to follow a different path if they so chose. The Phillipines became an independent country, Puerto Rico chose to remain a commonwealth with the US. Japan was a much different situation, broken by the unconditional surrender terms forced upon them, but under the guidance of the American Viceroy, General Douglas MacArthur, they were given their freedom relatively quickly, and given the opportunity, re-emerged as a major industrial nation. The US once had a wide suzerainty over South America, to the degree that no less a personage than Teddy Roosevelt considered it his personal right to encourage some revolutions to get concessions from more compliant successors in office. That, too, has pretty largely lapsed, as the various entities indigeous to Latin America have taken up the exercise of their own affairs.

Even the Middle East, largely inherited from England as the British Crown was breaking up its own empire, was given considerable range in self-determination, to a degree that region had never known even back in Biblical times. Of corse, the British had done an extraordinary job of imposing their own forms of culture on the region, to the degree the common language in regions such as India is a form of English.

[Tolik]

There was an old Soviet era joke in the USSR when one offers to declare war on the US. Another asks why. So the first says, so we can immediately surrender and get occupied.

I think there was an old American movie on the same theme with a fictional little country attacking US for the same reasons.

[MNJohnnie]

“The Mouse that Roared” Released in 1959.

[Names Ash Housewares]

IF America wanted to be an empire, it could have taken the world being the only atomic power for years.

Spreading freedom? guilty as charged.

[Mr. Silverback]

The more I see Naomi Wolfe talk about her book, the more worried I am for her sanity.

I was flipping channels and saw her saying on C-Span 2 that Gitmo is modeled after the Soviet gulags. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. If every single charge that has been made against Gitmo were true, it would still be a piece of cake compared to the gulags. For one thing, I doubt anybody ever gained weight from too much orange glazed chicken and rice pilaf in the gulag.

She definitely has a good case of BDS going.

[Mr. Silverback]

“The Mouse that Roared” Released in 1959.

It started out as a play. I was the propmaster for my high school's production. Really funny, and the movie is great because of Peter Sellers playing about half the parts.

[steve-b]

Women got the vote largely thanks to World War I.

This claim is so absurd as to shred the author's credibility. The trend toward women's suffrage was well underway during the late 19th century.

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.

While not quite as risible as the author's previous assertion, it is a clear non sequitur (unless Goldberg has some evidence that the defenders of segregation were soft on Communism).

[naturalized]

The Mouse that Roared

[RobbyS]

Without the Great War there would have been no 19 th amendment. The war itself was the last gasp of the progressive movement and intensified the emotion. Truman would not have integrated the armed services except for the reaction against racism caused by World War II. As it was, it took the Korean War to force integration, in part because the all-black units performed so badly in Korea in 1950. Funny things happens when whites and blacks have to share slave quarters. No love lost, but gradually one learns to get along. Little of the stuff that went on in England during WWII. The Civil Rights movement, of course, hurried the process. Top down reform, with the officer class beginning to realized that their careers depended on following the commander-in-chief on this.

[Fraxinus]

it is a clear non sequitur (unless Goldberg has some evidence that the defenders of segregation were soft on Communism).

My take on this is that an understated reason for the push on civil rights from the top was that segregation was an embarrassment that the Soviets were happy to exploit for propaganda.

[Will_Zurmacht]

yep, there’s a interesting book on this called “Cold War Civil Rights”. Soviets loved to use segregation in their appeals to the third world.

[Hunterite]

In recent years, however, there’s been an attempt to rehabilitate the e-word. Historian 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 watchman to keep the bad guys in check and to promote trade, he argued, and America is the best candidate for the job.

**********************************

Regardless of the PC status of the word “Empire”, an “Empire” usually has an emporer.

Now, if we continue along this line of massive immigration, then we may officially become an empire, as America balkanizes, and we would have to reconquer or recolonize the States.