Sally Morem’s Turn to Get Controversial
April 29, 2009 – 9:38 amI wrote a response to a very interesting post in the Postmodern Conservative web site on Bacevich and his anti-American Empire stance. First, the most interesting part of James Poulos’s post:
At the heart of the problem is our total confusion about what empire is. Noah helps us see that if hegemony is the problem then criticizing it as hegemony, and not empire, ought to be good enough. And paleo-ish conservatives are often willing to go into some detail about how and why life was pretty good, all things considered, under, say, the Austro-Hungarian empire. On the one hand, critics of America today reach for the word empire much in the way we reach for an anatomical curse word when someone cuts us off on the road; on the other, critics of empire often appear really to be criticizing certain types of empires, or empires suffering from more general political maladies, than to be criticizing empires as such. A great litmus test here would be to ask all these people what they think of Hobbes’ Leviathan. But questions like these do not dominate the public discourse.
In light of all this, I think Noah’s remarks are best read as a reminder that a foreign policy to be despised by critics of ‘American empire’ might emanate from a polity that is not very imperial from the perspective of domestic policy. It seems to me that critics of ‘American empire’ are likely to compare America’s domestic political health very unfavorably to the domestic political health of, say, Britain in 1900, to leave alone questions of life under the Austrian or Holy Roman or whichever Empire. And in some ways, they would be right! But in others, they would be wrong. And they would think this is so for different reasons. A civic-republican critic can find an empire with better practices of citizenship than ours. A civil-association critic can find an empire to be praised for maintaining a far more holistic and unified society than ours. The imperial line of argument simply cuts across too many competing realities. In short, to spin Daniel’s remarks, a republic can ‘extend’ itself out of existence quite well without becoming either a domestic or international empire, although of course it can cease to be a republic in the process of doing both. Then again, simply because the United States ceased to be a ‘real’ republic does not mean that it ever became an empire. Of course, the United States did become an empire, complete with colonies, and from the perspective of the supposedly far more corrupt and imperial era we are now living in, it actually turns out that America is less of an empire now than it was then, which is to say not really an empire at all.
Atop all this is the fact that things arguably began to turn around in Iraq at the moment when the U.S. actually began learning imperial practices and implementing them. Viewing empire as a logic of relational structures helps us see how that plays out — but the key point here is that by ‘going more imperial’ in Iraq it appears we helped create the conditions that were apt to make leaving Iraq all the more favorable.
And now, my very controversial (from the Amfree perspective) response:
Both libertarians and liberals shrink back in horror at the very idea of America as a superpower or hyperpower or unipolar power, let alone an empire. Why? Their arguments seem hollow, more aesthetically displeased than anything.
But why would the idea of America as THE power in the world be bad? In fact, why would the idea of America leading a world empire be bad? Why do we assume our extended world anarchy of hundreds of nation states is the be-all and end-all of political evolution? Why not a world federation based firmly on American principles and backed by American military power against all tyrants and all wannabees?
I’m not at all convinced by Bacevich or his fellow anti-American-imperialists are right or are moral in their arguments. After all, “imperialist” in the sneering town was adopted by Marxists in their attacks on free Western nations. Why should we adopt their presumptions as to what is politically moral or not?
I can easily conceive of the world as an “extended America,” especially if said world had far more federalist features than most nations in the world have today, including America, with the happy result being billions of wealthier, freer people.
Now you or Bacevich or others may make a worthy argument against this vision, but that’s much different than Bacevich foreclosing all discussion with his “naughty, naughty, America.”
John Lennon was good at imagining. So am I.
Imagine all the tyrants
Gone from all the world
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one I hope the world can join us
And the world and America would be one.
Now, there are plenty of arguments to be made about the practicality or impracticality of such a vision, or the means by which it might actually be attained. There are even arguments to be made about the desirability of American hegemony over the world. But, as I said to Poulos (agreeing with his basic point), dismissing the possibility out of hand with no argument whatsoever, and with no argument deemed PC enough to even be addressed, is disturbingly similar to the attempts by the left to stage manage “appropriate” political discourse and ought to be resisted by all right-thinking American conservatives…and those few liberals who take genuine freedom of speech seriously.
I genuinely do believe an American world hegemony would be far better for the worlds 6 billion + people. I’m not at all sure we could attain it, but I believe the possibility should be discussed at some length, as Michael Mandelbaum did in his book, “The Case for Goliath,” in which he described how America provides our anarchic world with desperately needed forms of governance right now.
9 Responses to “Sally Morem’s Turn to Get Controversial”
Not controversial, thought provoking and stimulating of good discussion. More to come I’m sure
Thanks for the excellent post
By Nik on Apr 29, 2009
I agree with J.Q. Adams – don’t go abroad in search of monsters to destroy – and with Washington (no entangling alliances) and Eisenhower (beware the military-industrial-congressional complex). Any war launched without provocation is unlawful, and if continued without a declaration of war, it is not Constitutional. Utopian schemes to rid the world of dictators arfe Wilsonian, and not conservative.
Sally Morem reply on April 30th, 2009 2:13 pm:
One of my main points in my last reply as that we’ve done nothing but going “abroad.” The borders of the United States were fixed after the Treaty of Paris in 1783, but our intrepid pioneers continually violated Washington’s supposed limits. From what I understand, he didn’t really object all that much to Americans’ westering habits.
We didn’t get to be a superpower by obeying libertarian pacifist sentiment, which, BTW, was superimposed anachronistically on 19th century America by 20th century political philosophers.
By Lloyd on Apr 29, 2009
Here is my response to a response posted in Postmodern Conservatism web site:
http://www.firstthings.com/postmodernconservative/?p=404&cpage=1#comment-5250
Why do you assume the Founders assumed American expansion was bad? They didn’t. The enormity of the United States of America was the result of the most vigorous expansionist policy in the world.
Robert Kagan’s “Dangerous Nation” illustrates the point superbly in his history of America’s 19th century foreign policy.
Libertarians ignore that most pointed of facts in American history when they argue that Americans just wanted to mind their business. Tell it to the Indians, the French, the British, the Spanish, the Mexicans, the Russians, the Hawaiians, the Filipinos.
In fact, America’s Founding Generation invented one of the true wonders of the world: The very first non-colonial system of political expansion. Almost simultaneously, the Confederation Congress and the Constitutional Convention laid out the plan in the forms of the Northwest Ordinance, and Article IV. Each new state was admitted to the Union free and equal to the older states, not as colonial provinces.
The only reason America didn’t expand further than it did was slavery. The Caribbean,Central and South America would have been slave states, Canada would have been composed of free states. Congress would not permit annexation of those territories for obvious reasons. Just think “Missouri.” After the Civil War, American energies turned inward as it industrialized.
I deliberately left the means open to how (if it ever happens) America would turn the world into an free and democratic American empire.
It’s possible (just barely) that no use of arms will be needed. Most of our states joined the Union at their insistence, not at Washington’s. And certainly not at the point of bayonets and cannon.
It’s also possible that it may happen very incrementally, and may have already begun. In “The Case for Goliath,” Michael Mandenbaum makes a convincing case for the fact that forms of American informal governance of the world already exist. Many leftists believe American empire already exists, also. Of course they are very much against it, but the points they make are suggestive.
Incrementalism may occur as the result of world demand and/or perceived dire necessity on the part of American leaders. (See the Somalian pirates for a good example.) In which case, it will be more of an evolutionary process than the revolutionary process involved in traditional national “unfriendly takeovers” that you have in mind.
The world empire I have in mind would be enforced judiciously by very high tech, pinpoint military operations, with little or no collateral damage. The idea that we are stuck with today’s military tech for tomorrow’s operations is laughable considering how fast our tech has developed during our wars (Iraq included) and between our wars.
Have you ever seen the world map of American military commands (SouthCom, CentCom, PaCom, EuCom)? Check it out here:
http://www.yes-dk.dk/YES/images/stories/Upload/uscom.jpg
This map is a map of world empire American style. Benevolent, kindly meant, but world empire just the same.
There are two things I worry about most. Both involve Obama. 1. He takes leftist pacifism seriously and seriously degrades our military. 2. He begins to envision a leftist takeover of the world, a la the Soviet Union. Disastrous.
I suspect (I hope) he’ll just let what has been evolving continue to evolve, cut back a little here and there, and then leave office in 2013 without doing too much damage.
By Sally Morem on Apr 30, 2009
Most libertarians are not “pacifist” thank you. We recognize that the U.S. wasn’t founded on imperialist principles. We are sufficiently war like, thank you, when we are attacked (or are told we have been and believe it). Our “pacifism” is limited to using our Armed Forces unconstitutionally and in pursuit of objectives that aren’t *National Defense*.
By Nik on May 1, 2009
I am neither libertarian nor pacifist. If attacked, we fight; if under immanent threat of attack, we fight. My comments on that were clear. I object to secular crusades to impose utopian schemes upon others who do not want them. That is common sense and conservative. The Woodrow Wilsons of this world (and Bush ‘43 is one) are not conservative; they have more in common with Trotsky than they do with Burke.
By Lloyd on May 2, 2009