we're building empire

no, this isn't a post about queensryche, although i do admit i enjoyed their albums empire and operation mindcrime.

i ran across an op-ed piece in the l.a. times that piqued my interest. i mean, i've harbored thoughts that our leaders, especially in recent years, have been building a de-facto empire. and, i know that at previous points in u.s. history we definitely have worked at building empire. so, i wanted to read this article with the provocative title of "at piece with pax americana."

(for those that don't know, pax romana = the roman piece, a term used to describe the roman empire and it's reach across the mediterranean world.)

i think the article may be best summed up with these three quotes:

"Critics of American foreign policy point to the fact that the U.S. does many things that empires once did -- police the seas, deploy militaries abroad, provide a lingua franca and a global currency -- and then rest their case. But noting that X does many of the same things as Y does not mean that X and Y are the same thing. The police provide protection, and so does the Mafia. Orphanages raise children, but they aren't parents. If your wife cleans your home, tell her she's the maid because maids also clean homes. See how well that logic works."

"The second verse of the anti-imperial lament, sung in unison by liberals and libertarians, goes like this: Expansion of the military-industrial complex leads to contraction of freedom at home. But historically, this is a hard sell. Women got the vote largely thanks to World War I. President Truman, that consummate Cold Warrior, integrated the Army, and the civil rights movement escalated its successes even as we escalated the Cold War and our presence in Vietnam. President Reagan built up the military even as he liberalized the economy."

"Whatever sway the U.S. holds over far-flung reaches of the globe is derived from the fact that we have been, and hopefully shall continue to be, the leader of the free world, offering help and guidance, peace and prosperity, where and when we can, as best we can, and asking little in return. If that makes us an empire, so be it. But I think "leader of the free world" is the only label we'll ever need or -- one hopes -- ever want."


now, i find these quotes very compelling, especially in dispelling the idea of american empire. just because it has feathers doesn't mean it's a chicken. then again, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, maybe it's a duck.

the second quote, while historically accurate, seems to deny, disregard or ignore what is currently happening. those in power acknowledge that our freedoms and civil liberties are being hedged due to the war on terror. it isn't a complete loss, but there still are changes happening for the purpose of safety, and definitely may be aiding the creation of empire.

my final thought, for now, on empire and the article is the idea of change. we may not be an empire like rome, england, or the u.s.s.r., but it just may be the case that empire has changed. x may be similar to y but not the same and that could be due to the fact that the definition, the reality has changed. his hopes of just being the "leader of the free world," even if that makes us an empire, really hits the nail on the head. you can lead without creating empire. and, you could create a ideological empire and lead. and, the u.s. has done this very well. we've californicated the world. and, that's helped to lead to the war on terror as a particular culture fights against the "west." but just because we create an ideological empire doesn't mean should be invading other countries (iraq), or supporting military coups in others (venezuela).