I dislike the word empire.
It's a byword these days for everything American. America is the modern Rome - stretching it's fingers far into lands with which it has little contact other than a military presence. American culture and media unerringly plant their flags across the globe to create small satellites of influence, like the Soviet Union of the 70s and 80s (a fact that today's educated elite never tire of smugly reminding us, as though it were a painfully accurate comparison).
My understanding of the classic idea of empire is a nation-state (or region, whatever your preference is) that can claim lands and civilizations foreign to its centre as its own. Britain was an empire at one point because countries such as India and Sri Lanka were made to pledge allegiance to the Queen. They shared a head of state, and the smaller, servile countries took their political cues from a distant ruler.
The US is no such hegemon. I'm not entirely educated on this point, but I cannot name another country that is forcibly made to pledge formal allegience to George W. Bush. No other country flies an American flag as official state policy. This may be a small point to argue against - nobody can deny that America has more cultural and political influence than any other civilization previous.
But the word empire has a consistently (albeit fairly recent) negative connotation, just as, I suppose, "American" currently does. And in the state of mind, it's popular to compare America to that last failed empire: Rome. Rome's spectacular slow-motion car-wreck of a decline is a delightful model for American nay-sayers to call upon, only with the added joy is pointing out that Rome was at least cultured.
What is driving the American juggernaut into the ground? Pick one, anything. Literally any aspect of what might be loosely considered the American Way of Life will be another nail in it's own coffin. Environmental policy (or lack of), her politics, her education system, her slumping economy, the housing market, the declining standards of television, McDonald's, Croc shoes, Paris Hilton, the extinction of the rare blue shrub of Nevada, Sen. Craig's mischievious right toe i the men's bathroom. Nothing is too small a point to stick in the supposedly rapidly-deflating balloon of US dominance.
Yet for all the destruction theories, no convincing alternatives have risen to fill the vacuum. We like to think that the European Union is the last bastion of 'white' culture and will always be a guiding light, but how well does that hold up? Europe enjoys an aging population that is being reduced by half every generation: there may not be a Europe to save us in 50 years, much less a "white" majority in major capitals like London.
**Please understand that my argument here is not a "white supremacist" one in any sense, but only to point out that the comfortable way of life most of us enjoy here is the result of a history of what is generally considered "white", or "Anglo-Saxon" if you prefer, forms of governance: democratic ideals, free market, etc. For an example, note that countries like America and Canada, whose lifestyles we primarily identify with, are of British heritage. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule. **
China or Russia? Forget it: as the article by Joel Achenbauch clearly indicates, both of these countries boast power based on number or history, but both are leading the pack in economic, environmental, and societal decline.
The Middle East? Perhaps, based on their booming demography. But the median age in much of the middle east is still in it's infancy, and the life expectancy still not much better than many African nations.
America makes missteps. The lunges it takes from time to time in technology or foreign policy often lead to disasterous consequences down the road. Such is the burden of being the biggest player on the field - your own unweildiness undercuts the sheer power and influence of your maneuvers. But perhaps being the biggest also allows you the best view as well.
I don't believe that US power is in decline, first off because the idea of an American empire is ridiculous. US military might may cast a shadow over the political schemes of other nations, but don't consider for a second that it doesn't work the other way around. The US has adaptibility going for it, coupled with a tried and true form of government that, while still a leakey boat at times, has sailed relatively smoothly since 1776. Keep in mind that most democratic states in contiental Europe are much younger than even Canada's own.
Will America fall because of its military campaigns, leaving itself and the world nothing but an ash-ridden parking lot of nuclear fallout? Unlikely. For all its detractors, US military campaigns still largely serve to protect its own security and the security of it's people. As distasteful as war is, and the current conflict at hand, I still believe that promoting democracy in the Middle East and around the world works to the benefit of all. To say that the loss to this point of American lives is not worth the final result is insulting, and only exacerbates the boldness of those who see democracy as a weak horse form of government (this is about the time most would accuse me of being a brainwashed neocon youth).
My point is not to dwell on Iraq: the issue is much bigger than that. To end this entry, I'll simply direct you to the
article from the Washington Post that gave rise to this belated blog.
Post-script: I find it funny, and kind of sad, that those who argue the benefits of globalization and the breaking down of national boundaries take it as read that America, the best example of globalization at work, is inherently globalization's cautionary tale. "Let's accept the cultures and practices of other peoples, but not share our own, for that would empirial and dictatorial." What one is essentially saying is that would should tolerate other cultures much like we would tolerate small children, while not allowing our more dominant culture to exert any influence, for it's sheer effectiveness gives it an unfair advantage.
