The Reluctant Empire

Is America an empire? This simple question elicits astonishingly passionate answers. Those who argue that the Pax Americana is effectively an imperium generally dosoina somewhat shamefaced way. They are quick to point out that it is a very different empire from European empires of the 19th century—for example, it has no colonies (apart from a handful of islands in the South Pacific). This makes it, in the current euphemism, “an empire of freedom.” On the other hand, those who deny that America is an empire make exactly the same point: How can America be an empire, if it has no colonies? In this view, what the U.S. has constructed is a set of alliances and trade agreements that link America with other countries by trade, migration, investment, and diplomacy. To call these mutually beneficial and acceptable arrangements an empire, however “informal,” is simply a misuse of language.

One can argue around these points indefinitely. If the U.S. has no colonies, what exactly are Indian reservations? Americans have been able to convince themselves that they were good anti-imperialists because they had swallowed (or found convenient) the “blue-water fallacy” that ignored imperial conquest and occupation over land, reserving the terms “imperialism” and “colonialism” for overseas possessions. Thus, the Philippines were a colony and the U.S. got rid of it pretty smartly, but Arizona and New Mexico are states, and therefore a permanent part of the Union unless Mexican immigration and the Reconquista movement change local sentiments. (That seems highly unlikely, but it is largely how the U.S. acquired Texas.)

About the Author

John O’Sullivan

John O’Sullivan is a senior fellow at National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Featured Tags

Is America an empire? This simple question elicits astonishingly passionate answers. Those who argue that the Pax Americana is effectively an imperium generally dosoina somewhat shamefaced way. They are quick to point out that it is a very different empire from European empires of the 19th century—for example, it has no colonies (apart from a handful of islands in the South Pacific). This makes it, in the current euphemism, “an empire of freedom.” On the other hand, those who deny that America is an empire make exactly the same point: How can America be an empire, if it has no colonies? In this view, what the U.S. has constructed is a set of alliances and trade agreements that link America with other countries by trade, migration, investment, and diplomacy. To call these mutually beneficial and acceptable arrangements an empire, however “informal,” is simply a misuse of language.

One can argue around these points indefinitely. If the U.S. has no colonies, what exactly are Indian reservations? Americans have been able to convince themselves that they were good anti-imperialists because they had swallowed (or found convenient) the “blue-water fallacy” that ignored imperial conquest and occupation over land, reserving the terms “imperialism” and “colonialism” for overseas possessions. Thus, the Philippines were a colony and the U.S. got rid of it pretty smartly, but Arizona and New Mexico are states, and therefore a permanent part of the Union unless Mexican immigration and the Reconquista movement change local sentiments. (That seems highly unlikely, but it is largely how the U.S. acquired Texas.)