Is America an imperialist country? The
Left has long said so. Recently, some "conservatives" have
unsurprisingly found the term "ideologically loaded" and suggested it
be "retired" from textbooks and, thus "'imperialism' as a characterization
of America's modern rise to world power is giving way to 'expansionism,'"
reports Brett Michael Dykes (U.S.
history textbooks could soon be flavored heavily with Texas conservatism).
But these same "conservatives" are also arguing that "Thomas
Jefferson [be] no longer included among writers influencing the nation's
intellectual origins," so it appears theirs is a campaign to rewrite
American history as "ideologically loaded" as any ever carried out by
the Left.
However, there is a much more interesting conservation happening about terms
like "empire" and "imperialist" among the factions now
coalescing to form what may be a broad-based movement reminiscent of the American Anti-Imperialist League and
the America First Committee from the turn
and middle of the last century. David R. Henderson, writing about the recent
conference titled "Across the Political Spectrum Against War and
Militarism" (The
Left-Right Conference on War), reported, "When Paul
Buhle, an historian and, in the 1960s, the editor of Radical America,
the magazine of Students for a Democratic Society, proposed that
anti-Imperialism be replaced with anti-Empire, [conservative William] Lind
agreed vigorously."
Kevin Zeese in his report on the same Voters
for Peace-sponsored "meeting of 40 people from across
the political spectrum who oppose war and Empire" (Time for a
Broad-Based Antiwar Movement), observed:
"Some conservatives warned against
describing the United States
as imperialist [because] that would get up the hackles of many Americans. But,
they were comfortable describing the United States as an empire.
That there exists an American Empire
seems an undeniable reality. What Chalmers Johnson described in 2004 as
"an empire of bases" then consisted of "702 overseas bases in
about 130 countries" in addition to the "6,000 bases in the United
States and its territories" (America's Empire of Bases). William
Pfaff this year updated the numbers and added that "the United States now
has 1.25 million service men and women on active duty, 700,000 civilians in
service and supporting roles, and... an unknown number of private and foreign
mercenaries... on 800 to 1,000 bases scattered about the world" (A Duped
President's Wasted Foreign-Policy Year). The American
Empire is thus a given.
Then, is what seems to be a logical extension of that reality, that America is thus
an imperialist power, a point that is up for debate? What are these latter,
truer conservatives getting at? Isn't a country with an empire ipso facto an
imperialist country? Perhaps not. The answer to that question may be found by
answering the questions raised by the man of the left, Mr. Zeese, as to whether
"empire [is] good for us, for our national security, for our economy, for
our democracy."
Is empire good for our national security?
Mr. Pfaff, in the article mentioned above, answered Mr. Zeese's question about
national security: "The Americans who today are actually at risk from
dangers that have a foreign origin are these hundreds of thousands of people
stationed around the world, intervening in the political affairs of other
societies." This "intervening in the political affairs of other
societies" also serves to make the world hate us and make Americans less
safe at home and abroad. Switzerland
has never maintained a military presence in 130 countries and does not seem to
have suffered much as a consequence.
The "fight-them-there-so-we-don't-have-to-fight-them-here" argument
is so laughable on its face that it doesn't merit serious debate. It is obvious
that the only way "they" can get "here" is by us letting
them in, as we did with the 9/11 terrorists, who trained in Florida; obvious,
except perhaps to those so fearful and gullible to have actually taken
seriously "Iraq's unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program" (Iraqi Drones May Target U.S. Cities).
"Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a
different course," said our first president (George
Washington's Farewell Address), referring to our geography
and the prospects for neutrality it afforded. Geography has not changed much,
and this same "detached and distant situation" should be used to our
advantage, as it always has in the past. Let us rely on geography, not military
interventionism. Fred Reed once noted "Americans cannot always distinguish
between military prowess and the Atlantic Ocean"
(Confessional). Add to that the Pacific Ocean, and the logical conclusion is that we are
relatively free of "dangers that have a foreign origin," unless, of
course, we continue to insist on "intervening in the political affairs of
other societies."
Is empire good for the economy?
Recently answering Mr. Zeese's question was that man of the right, Patrick J.
Buchanan, with some rhetorical questions of his own, highlighting the absurdity
of the "imperial" arrangement (Liquidating
the Empire):
"Indeed, how do conservatives justify borrowing hundreds of billions yearly from Europe, Japan, and the Gulf states to defend Europe, Japan, and the ArabGulf states? Is it not absurd to borrow hundreds of billions annually from China to defend Asia from China? Is it not a symptom of senility to borrow from all over the world in order to defend that world?"
Another answer to that same question came a few years ago from Ivan Eland (Ungrateful Allies):
"Despite plundering their colonies at gunpoint (for example, the Spanish Empire looted the gold from Latin America) and creating sheltered markets for their goods overseas (for example, British mercantilism), even the formal empires of old were not cost-effective, according to classical economists. The informal U.S. Empire that defends other countries abroad using alliances, military bases, the permanent stationing of U.S. troops on foreign soil, and profligate military interventions is even more cost-ineffective. U.S. forces cannot plunder, and rich allies, such as South Korea, excessively restrict their markets to U.S. goods and services."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
