{"id":23064,"date":"2014-03-17T12:59:08","date_gmt":"2014-03-17T20:59:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=23064"},"modified":"2014-03-17T12:59:08","modified_gmt":"2014-03-17T20:59:08","slug":"empire-on-their-minds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2014\/03\/17\/empire-on-their-minds\/","title":{"rendered":"Empire on Their Minds"},"content":{"rendered":"

The conflict in Ukraine has prompted several level-headed commentators to point out that, of all governments, the U.S. government is in no position to lecture Russia about respecting other nations\u2019 borders. When Secretary of State John Kerry said on Meet the Press<\/em>, \u201cThis is an act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms of its pretext.\u2026 You just don\u2019t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests,\u201d one of those commentators, Ivan Eland<\/a>, responded,<\/p>\n

\n

Hmmm. What about the George W. Bush\u2019s invasion of Iraq after exaggerating threats from Iraqi \u201cweapons of mass destruction\u201d and dreaming up a nonexistent operational link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and the 9\/11 attacks. And what about Ronald Reagan\u2019s invasion of Grenada in 1983 to save U.S. medical students in no danger and George H.W. Bush\u2019s invasion of Panama because its leader, Manuel Noriega, was associated with the narcotics trade?\u2026 More generally, Latin America has been a US sphere of influence and playground for US invasions since the early 1900s – Lyndon Johnson\u2019s invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 and Bill Clinton\u2019s threatened invasion of Haiti in 1994 being two recent examples.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Indeed, Russia isn\u2019t the only country that has brutally regarded its \u201cbackyard\u201d as its sphere of influence and playground. This doesn\u2019t make it okay for the Russian government to behave as it has, but as Adam Gopnik<\/a> observes,<\/p>\n

\n

Russia, as ugly, provocative, and deserving of condemnation as its acts [in Crimea] may be, seems to be behaving as Russia has always behaved, even long before the Bolsheviks arrived. Indeed, Russia is behaving as every regional power in the history of human regions has always behaved, maximizing its influence over its neighbors – in this case, a neighbor with a large chunk of its ethnic countrymen.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Eland of course only scratches the surface in mentioning the U.S. government\u2019s unceasing program to control events in its sphere of influence. Some people understand that this program preceded the 20th century; it did not begin with the Cold War. The Spanish-American War, 1898, may come to mind, but I\u2019m thinking further back than that. How far back? Roughly 1776.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Even the government\u2019s schools teach, or at least taught during my 12-year sentence in them, that America\u2019s Founders had – let us say – an expansive vision for the country they were establishing. Historian William Appleman Williams\u2019s extended essay, Empire as a Way of Life<\/a><\/em>, provides many details. Clearly, these men had empire on their minds. Before he became an evangelical for independence from Great Britain, Benjamin Franklin proposed a partnership between England and the American colonists to help spread the enlightened empire throughout the Americas. His proposal was rejected as impractical, so he embraced independence – without giving up the dream of empire in the New World. George Washington spoke of the \u201crising American empire\u201d and described himself as living in an \u201cinfant empire.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thomas Jefferson – \u201cthe most expansion-minded president in American history\u201d (writes Gordon S. Wood) – set out a vision of an \u201cEmpire of Liberty,\u201d later revised as an \u201cEmpire for<\/em> Liberty,\u201d and left the presidency believing that \u201cno constitution was ever before as well calculated as ours for extensive empire and self-government.\u201d As Jefferson<\/a> wrote James Monroe in 1801, Jefferson\u2019s first year as president,<\/p>\n

\n

However our present interests may restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits, & cover the whole northern, if not the southern continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms, & by similar laws.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Indeed, in the eyes of the Founders, the American Revolution was largely a war between a mature empire and a nascent one. (Many – but assuredly not all – Americans of the time would have cheerily agreed.) Their goal was to bring civilization (which was still identified with England and many of its institutions) to the New World\u2019s benighted.<\/p>\n

As Jefferson indicated, this vision was more than continental, because South America was never regarded as permanently off limits. If expansion required conflict with the French and Spanish also, so be it.<\/p>\n

The Indian Wars were among the first steps in empire building. The unspeakable brutality and duplicity – the acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide, as we say today – were crimes, not merely against individuals, but also against whole societies and nations. \u201cImperialism\u201d was not yet a word in use, but that\u2019s what this was, as were the designs and moves on Canada (one of the objects of James Madison\u2019s War of 1812), Mexico, Cuba, Florida, the Mississippi and New Orleans, Louisiana, the Northwest, and the Pacific coast (the gateway to Asia). The wishes of the inhabitants – who were \u201cas yet incapable of self-government as children,\u201d as Jefferson said<\/a> of Louisiana\u2019s residents – didn\u2019t count. (Lincoln\u2019s war is thus understood as an exercise in empire preservation.)<\/p>\n

A good deal of this program was tied up with trade. For libertarians, trade far and wide is a good thing, but one must keep in mind that the expansion of trade in those days (as in these) depended on how strong the government was. By hook and crook, a constitution that denied the national government the powers to regulate trade and to tax – the Articles of Confederation – had been exchanged for one – the U.S. Constitution – that authorized both powers. (The libertarian Albert Jay Nock<\/a> called the federal convention in Philadelphia a coup d\u2019\u00e9tat. See my video lecture<\/a>.) Trade meant trade policy<\/em>, and that meant government activism, which included selective embargoes, such as those imposed by Jefferson\u2019s program of \u201cpeaceful coercion.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Articles of Confederation were a poor platform for empire building; not so the Constitution. \u201cBoth in the mind of Madison and in its nature,\u201d Williams wrote, \u201cthe Constitution was an instrument of imperial government at home and abroad.\u201d (See my \u201cThat Mercantilist Commerce Clause<\/a>.\u201d)<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t mean to say that the liberty of Americans was of no concern to their rulers. I do mean, however, that liberty was to be subordinated (only to the extent necessary, of course) to national greatness, which was America\u2019s destiny. (I first heard the words \u201cManifest Destiny\u201d in a government school. Do kids hear it today?)<\/p>\n

Americans sensed that something exceptional was happening. And indeed it was, as Gordon Wood explains in his masterful The Radicalism of the American Revolution<\/a><\/em>. To the dismay of the dominant Federalists, average Americans, exemplified by those whom Wood calls \u201cplebeian Anti-Federalists,\u201d saw the revolution as having overturned hierarchical and aristocratic colonial society in favor of a democracy that facilitated personal and commercial self-interest. (This did not sit well with those who wanted America to be, per Wood, \u201ceither a hierarchy of ranks or a homogeneous republican whole.\u201d)<\/p>\n

But even well-grounded exceptionalism can quickly turn dark by the perceived duty to enlighten – or , if necessary, exterminate – the benighted. And that\u2019s what happened. The Indian Wars were popular; so were the other imperial exploits. (This is not to say there were no dissenters.)<\/p>\n

Williams notes that exceptionalism came with a feeling of aloneness. Thus, the quest for security and tranquility for the new nation – invoked in precisely those words – fueled these imperial exploits. The national-security state is nothing new; only the technology has changed.<\/p>\n

Some American figures glimpsed that empire and liberty might not so easily fit together. (The unabashed empire builders were convinced that freedom at home required <\/em>empire.) The problem was that even many who opposed empire, sometimes quite eloquently, wanted ends that only an empire could procure. Williams puts John Quincy Adams in this small camp. Secretary of State Adams\u2019s July 4, 1821, speech<\/a>, declaring that America \u201cgoes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy,\u201d was \u201cthoughtful, powerful, and subversive,\u201d Williams writes. \u201cBut for the time Adams remained enfolded in the spirit of empire and was unable to control the urge to extend America\u2019s power and influence.\u201d (As secretary of state, he supported Maj. Gen. Andrew Jackson\u2019s seizure of Florida from the Spanish.)<\/p>\n

Adams was the main author of the Monroe Doctrine, which announced not only that the United States would stand aloof from Europe\u2019s quarrels, but also that the Western Hemisphere was exclusively the U.S. government\u2019s sphere of influence: \u201cThe American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers,\u201d for any such extension would be taken as \u201cdangerous to our peace and safety [i.e., our national security].\u201d<\/p>\n

So keep out of our backyard, Europe, and we\u2019ll keep out of yours. Except, Williams adds, that President Monroe \u201cthen asserted the right of the United States to support Greek revolutionaries.\u201d<\/p>\n

This history doesn\u2019t excuse Russia, but it does put Putin\u2019s actions in perspective. It also accounts for the less-than-awed reception for President Obama\u2019s and Secretary Kerry\u2019s sanctimonious utterances. To the extent that Obama and Kerry imply that Russia threatens our \u201cpeace and safety,\u201d they look like fools. \u201cThe worst pretense of empire,\u201d Adam Gopnik writes, \u201cis that every rattle on the edges is a death knell to the center.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation<\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The conflict in Ukraine has prompted several level-headed commentators to point out that, of all governments, the U.S. government is in no position to lecture Russia about respecting other nations\u2019 borders. When Secretary of State John Kerry said on Meet the Press, \u201cThis is an act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":177,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-23064","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23064","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/177"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23064"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23064\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23066,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23064\/revisions\/23066"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23064"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23064"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23064"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=23064"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}