- Fifty years ago, the classical liberal author and journalist
Garet Garrett published a collection of essays called The People's Pottage
(1953). In the midst of the Korean War, he tried to persuade the American
people that the United States was on a new course that conflicted with
the original conception of the nation. Its constitutional safeguards for
the preservation of freedom were being threatened and undermined by the
role the government was assuming around the world.
-
- The specific danger was reflected in the title of one
of the essays in the volume, "The Rise of Empire." Garrett summarized
what he considered the requisite signs of the emerging American Empire.
First, the executive power of the government becomes increasingly dominant.
The traditional institutional restraints and balances on the three branches
of government are weakened, with more and more discretionary power and
authority shifting to the office of the president. Congress plays an increasingly
subservient role, with lawmaking and regulatory decision-making transferred
to bureaus and departments under the executive's control.
-
- Second, domestic-policy issues become increasingly subordinate
to foreig-policy matters. Out of the ashes of the Second World War, Garrett
argued, the United States had taken on the status and position of a global
policeman responsible for the "the peace of the world." To fulfill
this task, all other matters become of secondary importance. Threats and
military actions around the globe place the American people more and more
in harm's way. And in the middle of the inevitable crises that come with
global military commitments, "sacrifices" of freedom at home
are required to ensure "national survival" in the face of unending
dangers on every continent where U.S. forces stand at the ready.
-
- Third, Empire threatens to result in the ascendancy of
the military mind over the civilian mind. Civil society places the dignity
and privacy of the individual at the center of social affairs. Commerce
and trade are the peaceful and voluntary means and methods by which people
interact for mutual improvement of their lives. The military mind, on the
other hand, imposes hierarchy and control over all those under the direction
of the commander in chief. The successful pursuit of the "mission"
always takes precedence over the individual and his life. And Empire, by
necessity, places increasing importance on military prowess and presence
at the expense of civilian life and its network of noncoercive, market
relationships.
-
- Fourth, Empire creates a system of satellite nations.
As Garrett explained it, "From the point of view of Empire the one
fact common to all satellites is that their security is deemed vital to
the security of the Empire.... The Empire, in its superior strength, assumes
responsibility for the security and the well being of the satellite nation,
and the satellite nation undertakes to stand with its back to the Empire
and face the common enemy."
-
- Fifth, Empire brings with it both arrogance and fear
among the imperial people. As the citizens of the nation that takes on
the role of "master of the world," the people increasingly consider
themselves all-powerful and superior to those over whom their government
has assumed guardianship. More and more on the tongue of the citizens and
their political spokesmen are references to "our" superior values,
as well as "our" power and importance in all things in the world.
Yet at the same time, Empire brings fear. Enemies and threats are now all
around the people of the Empire, creating fears of attack and destruction
from any corner of the world. Even the "friends" among other
nations create suspicion and doubt about their loyalty and dependability
in moments of crisis.
-
- And, finally, Empire creates the illusion that a nation
is a prisoner of history. The language of Empire contains such phases and
ideas as "it is our time to maintain the peace of the world,"
or "it is our responsibility to save civilization and serve mankind."
There emerges a sense and an attitude of inevitability, that "if not
us, then who?" Empire becomes the burden we, the imperial people,
not only must bear but from which we have no escape. "Destiny"
has marked us for duty and greatness.
-
-
- An empire in everything but name
-
- For most of the 50 years since Garrett outlined what
he considered the characteristics of the emerging American Empire, most
political and foreign policy analysts have denied that America was or was
pursuing an empire. America was part of the world and as such could not
walk away from the world's problems: after all, the outcomes of those problems
affected the American people as well. Military alliances with multitudes
of other nations, military bases around the globe, tens of billions of
dollars spent on foreign and military aid to numerous governments on every
continent, and two protracted and bloody wars on the Asian mainland, were
not signs of empire. They were merely the burden created by an unbalanced
world in the wake of the destruction of the Second World War.
-
- With the end of the Cold War, following the collapse
of the Soviet Union, it was believed and hoped that the era of America's
military presence around the world could be, if not eliminated, at least
significantly reduced. Instead, new burdens were now seen to require continuing
U.S. political and military "leadership." The end of communism
released national and ethnic conflicts in parts of Eastern Europe that
50 years of socialist dictatorships had only repressed. At the same time,
"rogue states" and religious fanatics in those areas labeled
"the third world" during the Cold War era seemed to threaten
continuing political instability and mad acts of large-scale terrorism
- especially after the events of September 11, 2001.
-
- How shall America respond and what shall be its continuing
role on the world stage? After decades of denial that what American political
and military power had created around the globe was, indeed, a form of
empire, the word has now had a positive rebirth. The January 13, 2003,
cover story of U.S. News & World Report was "The New American
Empire?" The author summarized the policy tendencies that suggest
that the United States is on the path of empire and is likely to continue
down it.
-
-
- Unilateralism in a unipolar world
-
- An essential element in following this path is the concept
of "unilateralism," the idea that America must and should act
alone politically and militarily around the world whenever necessary, guided
by its own notion of its duty to mankind. This theme has been articulated
by the Pulitzer Prize winner and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer,
most recently in his article "The Unipolar Moment Revisited,"
in The National Interest (Winter 2002/03). He argues that since the end
of the Soviet Union, America has held a unique place on the world stage.
It is a vast colossus that produces almost one-third of the global Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) and spends more on military preparedness than the
next 20 nations together. Its culture and language dominate world commerce,
entertainment, science and technology, and lifestyles. No other nation
comes anywhere near it -nor should any other nation be allowed to, in Krauthammer's
view. It is now a "unipolar world" with only America the one
great power. And Ameri
-
- Krauthammer calls for political and military "unilateralism"
on the part of the United States precisely so it will be hamstrung by neither
alliance partners nor any of the international organizations of which it
is a member. He says that America is not an imperial power desiring to
rule other countries for natural resources, nor does it want to impose
"a grand vision of a new world," and it has "no great desire
to remake human nature." So what is it dominating the world for? Besides
its own self-defense, American unilateralism has two goals: "extending
the peace by advancing democracy and preserving the peace by acting as
balancer of last resort.... America's unique global power allows it to
be the balancer in every region." In the pursuit of these things,
"America must be guided by its own independent judgment, both about
its own interest and about the global interest." There must be no
"handcuffing of American power."
-
- He revels in the idea of this unipolar world over which
he considers the United States the ruler. And he wants nothing to threaten
its preservation. "The new unilateralism argues explicitly and unashamedly
for maintaining unipolarity, for sustaining America's unrivaled dominance
for the foreseeable future." And at the end of his article, paraphrasing
Benjamin Franklin, he says to his readers, "History has given you
an empire, if you will keep it."
-
- Also making a case for an imperial role for the United
States is Deepak Lal, professor of international development studies at
the University of California, Los Angeles. Lal has long been a leading
opponent of central planning and regulation in developing countries and
a strong advocate of free markets and competition. On October 30, 2002,
he delivered a lecture at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington,
D.C., entitled ìIn Defense of Empires.î Lal argues that empires
undeservedly have had a bad name in the 20th century. In his view, ìThe
major argument in favor of empires is that, through their pax, they provide
the most basic of public goods ó order ó in an anarchical
international society of states.î
-
- Among the great tragedies resulting from the First World
War, he believes, was the beginning of the end to the European, and especially
British, empires around the world. In the 19th century they had created
and maintained a system of international free trade, protected property
rights, legally enforced contracts, and secured a global arena for investment
and economic development. In their place arose political and economic nationalism
that created the chaos of the 1920s and 1930s, which culminated in the
Second World War. Now, in the wake of the end of the Cold War, the world
is confronted with the same dangers that it faced in the period between
the world wars: nationalist and ideological demagogues and religious fanatics.
America, therefore, must accept the mantle of global empire for the good
of the world and its own well-being. It must do for mankind in the 21st
century what the European empires did in the 19th century.
-
- Lalís only hesitation is that America may try
to make the world over in its own image in the pursuit and maintenance
of its empire. He says, ìThe so-called universal values being promoted
by the West are no more than the culture-specific, proselytizing ethic
of what remains at heart Western Christendom,î including the ìWestern
valueî of liberty. But ìmany civilizations have placed social
order above this value, and again it would be imperialistic for the West
to ask [other cultures and religions] to change their ways.î He fears
that ìif the West ties its moral crusade too closely to the emerging
processes of globalization and modernization, there is the danger that
there will be a backlash against the process of globalization.î And
this ìpotential cultural imperialism poses a greater danger to the
acceptance of a new Pax America in developing countries, particularly Muslim
countriesî than any other basis for resisting Americaís political
and military dominance around the world. But for discussing what Amer
-
- History does not dictate that America continue on its
path to global empire, any more than history dictated the ìinevitabilityî
of class conflict leading to a socialist paradise or that history dictated
the domination of the world by an Aryan ìmaster race.î If
America follows this direction it will be because the political elite and
the American public choose to do so. It will be a conscious decision, and
not fate or destiny. The question, then, is, is this a course that is best
for America and the world? And the answer, for any advocate of freedom,
must be that it is not.
-
- Deepak Lal tries to minimize the cost of an American
Empire by pointing out that in 2000 defense spending in the United States
amounted only to a little over 3 percent of GDP. But even ignoring the
increases in the defense budget that have been proposed by the Bush administration,
that still comes out to about $300 billion. Over 10 years that would add
up to $3 trillion: expressed differently, the American people will work
and pay taxes that will equal almost one and a half years of the cost of
government over the next decade just to maintain and man the American Empire.
And this ignores the deaths of Americans and the destruction of their property
during the coming years due to any wars or terrorist acts that result from
resistance or retaliation by those opposed to the American Empire.
-
- Lal also wistfully looks back to the British Empire of
the 19th century and wants America to now serve as the global guardian
of international order and commerce. But he confuses Empire with the prevailing
ideology of that earlier time. In spite of having an empire, the British
in particular were wedded to the political philosophy of classical liberalism.
They managed their global empire as a free-trade zone, not because it was
an empire but because the intellectuals and most people in Britain believed
in the idea and ideal of personal liberty and economic laissez faire.
-
- During these years of the 19th century, other European
powers, especially the French, the Germans and the Belgians, ran their
empires along far more exclusionary and protectionist lines meant to serve
special-interest groups in the mother country. All of these empires were
maintained and ruled with military force, with the French, Germans and
Belgians in particular often extremely brutal and cruel in their domination
of the subject groups in Africa and Asia. And even the British could be
merciless in their use of force to maintain their empire against the wishes
of their subject peoples.
-
- The ideas of free trade and economic liberalism do not
guide governments in the 21st century, including the government of the
United States. Domestic economic interventionism, the welfare state, and
political regulation of commerce and trade through international organizations
are the guiding ideas of our time, as they have been for many decades.
And the foreign-policy pronouncements and policy goals of the Bush administration
suggest no change in direction. (See Freedom Daily, ì<http://www.fff.org/freedom/0701b.asp>A
Regulated-Economy Agreement for the Americasî [July 2001] and ì<http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0212b.asp>The
Dangers and Costs of Pax Americaî [December 2002].) Abusive power,
corruption, and special interest favoritism are inseparable from the interventionist-welfare
state, whether it is practiced in domestic or foreign policy. Thus, there
is little reason to think that America would be any more humane in its
imperial role than the Ee any explanation for what he says or does when
it comes to military conflict? With Empire inevitably comes the ìimperial
presidency.î
-
- Krauthammer may be the schizophrenic victim of his own
rhetoric when he says that America has no desire to remake the rest of
the world and in the next breath says that the task of Americaís
empire is to spread Western-style democracy and values around the world.
But this goal, as Lal correctly sees, threatens the conception of a benign
American Empire that polices the peace and guarantees the order of the
world while attempting to indoctrinate the people of Asia, Africa, and
the Middle East to accepting superior Western thinking and ideals. The
issue is not whether the traditional Western ideas of liberty, property,
rule of law, and limited government are good and right ó any classical
liberal considers that they are. The issue is whether they can be force-fed
to people not willing to accept them on those terms. And it is hardly imaginable
that the American people, flush with the hubris of imperial power and indoctrinated
themselves by intellectuals and political leaders about the ìdestinyî
and ìhistorica
-
- This means that Empire will be a costly, frustrating,
and burdensome affair. It will require the expenditure of many lives and
vast fortunes. And it will undermine what remains of the free society and
the market economy here in the United States. At the end of ìThe
Rise of Empire,î Garrett said that the American people could have
back their limited, constitutional republic if they were willing to fight
for it. But people fight only when they know what they have lost and what
they still have to lose.
-
- Richard Ebeling is the Ludwig von Mises Professor of
Economics at <http://www.hillsdale.edu/>Hillsdale College in Michigan
and serves as vice president of academic affairs at The Future of Freedom
Foundation in Fairfax, Va.
-
- >http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0304b.asp
|
