Many intertwining things lead to the fall of the Roman Republic. Attempting to maintain an empire may have been one of them.
But the U.S. does not have to maintain an empire to be the dominant power. We have never been much of an empire, in spite of leaders like Roosevelt and McKinley who wanted us to be one. The people rejected ownership of the Phillipines. The Congress rejected ownership of Hawaii. Liberia was left to fend for itself.
Yes, the question likely comes down to “which is safer, to have a multi-polar world, that is likely unstable, which can embroil us in war; or to take up the role of world super power to keep stability?
It is not a clear or easy answer.
Very true. But an interesting question.
I always think of the Chinese parable that it is one thing to ride the tiger, it is another thing entirely as to how you’re going to get of his back and what happens then :-)
I personally think we grasped for empire as a reaction to the USSR. Then when they collapsed we were, and have bee, stuck in the middle between the sheer momentum of a necessarily aggressive foreign policy and our natural national inclination to let other people do their thing and we do ours.