Delusions Of Empire

How did we go from “End Endless Wars!” to “Empire!”, which inevitably leads to war?

Proposed flag of the American Empire. Source

The new Trump administration seems to have an imperial flavor to it. The president has been talking about expanding American territorial possessions like it’s the Theodore Roosevelt administration again.

It seems dead-set on claiming Greenland from Denmark:

Source

Meanwhile, newly-sworn Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s first overseas trip will be to Panama, a welcome change from the past, where countries much further out were first to be visited by an incoming top diplomat (outgoing State Secretary Antony Blinken’s first international visit was to Japan):

Newly sworn-in Secretary of State Marco Rubio will travel to Panama for his first international trip as the nation’s top diplomat, Fox News has learned.

Though details are still being worked out, the visit could come as early as next week.

The planned trip comes after repeated vows by President Donald Trump – who returned to the White House on Monday – to take back the Panama Canal.

“China is operating the Panama Canal. And we didn’t give it to China, we gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back,” Trump said.

Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino responded forcefully to Trump's comments on Wednesday saying, “we reject in its entirety everything that Mr. Trump has said. First, because it is false and second, because the Panama Canal belongs to Panama and will continue to belong to Panama.”

The elephant in the room, of course, is Trump’s threat to use all means, including military force, to re-take the canal. A serious threat? Is any of it serious?

Finally, there’s talk of making Canada the 51st state of the United States:

Source

And:

Source

What are we to make of all this?

Let me begin by saying this: the Trump administration’s Western Hemispheric focus is a much-needed shift in foreign policy. Superpower time is fading fast and America won’t be able to focus on events far beyond the horizon for much longer, nor is it in our benefit to do so. Long-term, all countries are best served by focusing on events close to home. In that sense, countries aren’t all that different from people.

That said, I also need to get this off my chest: nothing about this is serious. Imperialism is the wet dream of right-wing men who never put away childish things and listen to too much Erik Prince. Empires are lots of hard work, resource-draining, and run quickly into the point of diminishing returns, since they need to absorb and consume continuously in order to remain viable. Imperialism is also anathema to republicanism, since control of vast territories and peoples requires strong central governance, which is a reason why all empires are invariably authoritarian, typically under a monarchy. An alternative form of governing vast territories and peoples is through the federation, which is what the United States is, and is a less-centralized system.

If America is going to become an empire again, it’ll need to strengthen its central state considerably, among other considerations. Is it worth it? Obviously, the answer is no, but let’s talk more about why it isn’t.

We Don’t Have Enough Young People

Yes, demographics is here to ruin your day once again! You can care little about things like the median age of a given population all you want, but it doesn’t matter, because it cares about you. Empire requires lots of young people, young men especially. You’re sending people forth into potentially hostile territory, so not only do you need young men who are able to fight, die, and occupy ground, you also need young men who can build.

America has lots of young men due to its massive population, but what’s important is the proportion of young versus old. In a population such as America’s, where the age structure is more or less even up and down the population pyramid, you can trigger a demographic crisis by sending too many of your young people overseas, causing the population at home to age. If the idea behind empire is to benefit the homeland, I don’t know how sending such large numbers of young men overseas when they don’t comprise an outsized share of the population helps.

If the U.S. intends to become a colonial empire again, it needs to make another decision: will it populate these gained territories with men? Or with families? The “Anglo way” of colonization was to send entire families, while the Spanish/Portuguese way was to send primarily men. Of course, these men may eventually seek to enjoy the spoils that come with colonialism. Will they take them home with them? Or will they stay and make a new life in a new land, perhaps marrying into the local population, the way the Spaniards and Portuguese did? At which point, are we actually expanding the the nation, or creating an entirely new one? The Spanish and Portuguese found out the hard way.

A demographic argument for imperialism can be made if you have an excess proportion of young men and not enough land or resources to support them all. Sending them elsewhere, fighting wars, building civilization, these are all ways of dealing with the problem. But America doesn’t have that problem and it undoubtedly will not for the remainder of our lifetimes.

America Doesn’t Need An Empire

At least, America doesn’t need to go out and occupy foreign lands like a conventional empire. Peter Zeihan addressed the matter recently on his YouTube channel. It’s a short video, so watch it when you can.

Zeihan makes the interesting observation that European empires like the British and French more or less had to colonize foreign lands because their countries are relatively small. The more their population grew, the more crowded their countries became, and the more stress placed on resources. As a result, expansion was often the only way to relieve the pressure.

Zeihan also argues, more relevantly, that the U.S. already enjoys the benefits of empire without paying imperial costs, including when it comes to Denmark and the Panama Canal. The reason why America is so often referred to as an empire is because it exerts such tremendous influence worldwide, despite not physically occupying the whole world, like the British and Spanish did recently (in historical terms). In terms of physical presence, it is concentrated in key strategic countries like Germany and Korea, and the remainder of that presence is facilitated through the Navy. If we already enjoy the benefits of empire without actually being an empire, why change it? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Interestingly enough, Zeihan does argue that Cuba and Singapore might offer benefit for the U.S. to establish a presence in. In the case of the latter, however, the U.S. already enjoys the benefits of empire without actually occupying Singapore. In the case of the former, trying to take over Cuba, in the past, proved to be not worth the trouble, especially when occupying the large island offers no real benefit that the continental U.S. or Puerto Rico doesn’t already provide.

Which brings us to a critical fact: in terms of land mass and population, America is already an empire. In the past, a state controlling 3.8 million square miles, over 340 million people, and spanning four time zones (11, when counting overseas territories), would undeniably be considered an empire. In many ways, the U.S. couldn’t grow bigger than it already has, unless it actually plans on conquering the whole world, which it cannot.

In his 2022 book The End of the World Is Just the Beginning, Zeihan argued that the changing global order is what’s driving a renewed interest in imperialism, following that up by explaining why a return to imperialism is unlikely:

The only countries in a post-2022 world that might be able to maintain an overseas empire are those that can have three things going for them: a serious cultural superiority complex, a military capable of reliably projecting power onto locations that cannot effectively resist, and lots and lots and lots and LOTS of disposable young people.

The last country that boasted that combination of factors was the United States in the World War II aftermath. America’s rise in the 1800s and early 1900s was technological, geographic, demographic, and economic, but when the guns fell silent in 1945, the Yanks enjoyed technological, geographic, demographic, economic and military and strategic and numerical advantages. But even then, the Americans chose not to occupy the territory they had conquered—even when their potential subjects had welcomed them as liberators. Today we live in a world of accelerating demographic collapse. There are no countries who boast the mix of youth and reach necessary to project power out of their own neighborhood on a cost-effective, sustained basis.

Again, demographic realities put a stop to all of it. What’s more the U.S. is in a completely different strategic position today than it was following the end of World War II. It’s one thing to be able to project power and occupy foreign lands. It’s quite another to sustain it.

Seriously, why would you want to? Imperialism requires governance of all constituent colonies.. Our country is already pretty bad at it here at home. Some might think it’s fine to mis-govern the colonies, but remember: America itself was the product of mis-governed colonies. If the subjugated start resisting, the benefits of empire will dwindle rapidly.

There’s Just Too Much Opposition Out There

One thing all empires throughout history had in common: they were overwhelmingly powerful compared to everyone else. Yes, multiple empires existed concurrently, many of them clashing in heavyweight bouts for control of entire regions. Unless the U.S. is willing to throw thousands, perhaps millions, into the proverbial meat grinder to take over the world, it’s just not worth the expense.

Even smaller, weaker countries have access to weaponry and allies who can make a seemingly easy conquering into a prolonged, hellish affair. American foreign policy interventions are as a good an example as any as to how costly even the weak can make things for us. Gone are the days of showing up to bows-and-arrows fight with guns. When everyone has guns, the only way you’re going to win is by bringing even more destructive means of violence to the table.

There really isn’t much more to say on this. Wasting human life in this manner doesn’t make any sense, not any longer.

America First→Manifest Destiny→Global Hegemony

The dilemma of empire is this: it must benefit the homeland or some core demographic (like an ethnic group), but if mismanaged, the empire will end up consuming the very entity it was supposed to serve. In practice, empires often only benefit those in charge of running the empire itself, typically the monarchy. Everyone else is under its jackboot. The British Empire was arguably the most beneficial to its core - the English people - which is why it was, at least until recently, viewed more charitably than other empires.

Which is what makes this newfound enthusiasm for imperialism on the Right all the more mystifying. If the point of “America First” and electing Donald Trump was to reorient the country’s tremendous power and resources inward, to the benefit of Americans, and quit wasting it all trying to run the world, how would annexing Greenland, seizing the Panama Canal, and make Canada the 51st state help in that regard? How did we go from “End Endless Wars!” to “Empire!”, which inevitably leads to war?

Like I said before, I don’t think any advocates of empire are thinking to deep about any of this. But, ironically, there does exist a certain logic to it. In fact, you can draw a straight line from an attitude like “America First” to imperialism. What motivates America First is isolationism and, more importantly, unilateralism, a belief that a country answers to no one except itself, and that it wages war where it wants to, only when it wants to. Strong nationalistic sentiment is at the heart of unilateralism.

That combination of nationalism and unilateralism is precisely what underlies empires. Deciding it must wage war or pursue “Manifest Destiny” to further its greatness or secure itself from external threats is how imperialism begins. In addition to nationalism and a cultural superiority complex, as Zeihan says, imperialism can also be fueled by a sense of national purpose, a belief they have a mission to make the world a better place. Even the post-1945 American non-standard empire was motivated by a belief the country had to bring democracy to every corner of the globe. Even in its dying days today, official Washington is still motivated by this belief.

Put another way, if America today, under the Left, is a revolutionary empire for the benefit of the world, the Right wants a classical empire for the benefit of America.

What does that mean for the future? I’m not making a prediction, but I can see a timeline where pursuing America First policies leads to “Fortress America” and isolationism, during which time the country stabilizes internally, re-establishes sovereignty, and reasserts boundaries in its foreign relationships. Afterwards, it decides, either in pursuit of greatness or security, to pursue Manifest Destiny and, either through coercion (more likely) or colonization (less likely) to imperialize once more. It may work, it may not. If it works, the U.S. could end up once more as an empire.

The most important thing to remember, however, is that empire is ultimately a form of state. Unlike a nation state, it’s centered on a ruling class or a core people (like the English) among many others. Like so many things in life, it’s a study in contrasts. It can be multi-ethnic, multi-racial, even multi-national. It can be pluralistic and secular, and make life fair and equal for all. But it cannot be democratic nor libertarian. Empires are held together by strong governance, through force, otherwise, it falls apart. Exceptions like the British Empire aside, the empire ultimately benefits few of its subjects, because perpetuating state power becomes the singular purpose of the project.

The U.S. has some imperialistic potential, but I don’t think we’ll ever see Pax Americana. As I pointed out already, America is already quite the empire, and the results haven’t been all that impressive. There’s an alternative, however, one where the U.S. becomes a regional hegemon by concentrating its power, both hard and soft, in its geographic sphere of influence, the Western Hemisphere. Back home, it remains a federation, which allows it to control vast territories and peoples without needing to resort to the autocratic characteristics of real empires. America has always been this type of power, so it seems the best direction to go would be for the U.S. to re-discover federalism, while making it more capable of exerting power in its own neighborhood, instead of trying to influence events halfway around the world.

Imagine a U.S., secure in splendid isolation, as the unquestioned regional superpower with the entire hemisphere under its belt. Unlike global hegemony, it’s actually a realistic goal.

Then again, some American leader, someday, may decide to take on a bluntly imperial form of governance, not necessarily in the interest of ruling the world, but to more directly control the empire Washington already controls today. Maybe we’ll have our own Palpatine who reorganizes the American Republic into the “First American Empire?”

Last Chance To Save The Empire?

On a related note,

N.S. Lyons

, author of the Substack

The Upheaval

, recently explained in Unherd why Taiwan is worth fighting a war with China over:

The stakes of a conflict over Taiwan are of an entirely different category than any of the wars of choice the United States has involved itself in this century. Although little Taiwan is a democracy facing down an authoritarian great power, defending an abstract ideal like democracy is not the real reason for the United States to intervene over Taiwan. Rather, the blunt truth is that if the United States fails to protect Taiwan (as it has done since 1949), this would, more than any other geopolitical catastrophe, demolish our credibility as a security provider, conclusively mark the decisive moment China achieved hegemony as the world’s new dominant superpower, and lead to the rapid collapse of the web of alliances and institutions charitably known as the “liberal international order” and less charitably as the American Empire.

It’s an interesting argument, but ultimately unconvincing. So much of America’s credibility as a security provider was rooted in deterrence - the act of winning without fighting. Yes, on some level, you need to be able to fight as well, but the whole idea was that things like China invading Taiwan was never supposed to happen in the first place. It’s the reason why Russia’s invasion of Ukraine constitutes a geopolitical failure for the U.S.: because it wasn’t supposed to happen in the first place. If we’re in the position where we need to risk direct military conflict with China in order to maintain our credibility and hegemony, then the post-Cold War world order has already collapsed.

Even if we fought China and prevailed, that in no way guarantees the American Century continues. The rise of China as a nascent superpower is more symptom than cause for why the U.S. has gone into decline. Put another way, China can only pose a challenge to the U.S. because the U.S. has been so weakened. Defeating China may provide a brief respite, maybe a shot in the arm, but the end will eventually come, because China isn’t the reason why America has gone into decline.

Lyons details the costs Americans would have to pay if they failed to come to the aid of Taiwan:

And while many on the populist Right, myself included, are deeply sceptical of America’s sprawling empire and the vast costs of maintaining it, its sudden collapse would have swift and devastating consequences for the American nation at home. For one thing, our economy today is utterly dependent on running both a massive trade deficit of imports and gargantuan federal debts. The former depends on the latter, and both are completely dependent on the US Dollar maintaining its “exorbitant privilege” as the world’s reserve currency — a status it retains essentially only because the United States is the world’s top dog. A clear victory by China over Taiwan would end that privilege, with the world quickly reordering itself for a Chinese century. In the defeated United States, the result would be a simultaneous debt, financial, and economic crisis of a magnitude that would make the Great Depression seem mild. Americans’ standard of living might never recover.

I don’t disagree with Lyons there - he’s correct, in fact - but again, a victory against China will likely only kick the can down the road, because America’s problems are more deeply-rooted. Not only that, a war with China would cause many of the problems Lyons lists. War with China would be a Fourth-Turning-level event, requiring the lion’s share of the country’s resources to be devoted to tackling, perhaps even a national mobilization. More critical projects, like protecting the border, would become all but impossible in the event of war overseas without mobilizing the totality of society. I don’t know if such a thing is possible any longer.

Every Fourth Turning America has been through, it has emerged stronger on the other side. However, we cannot count on successful outcomes forever. With success comes costs, also. This Fourth Turning might be the one where the U.S. is forced to take the ‘L’ in the interest of keeping the American state viable in some form for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, history shows that states, superpowers, especially, rarely forfeit, even when it might be the better choice.

Time To Open Up New Frontiers? Or Time To Retrench?

What do you think? Do you take any of the Trump administration’s imperial ambitions seriously? Does imperialism pose any benefits for Americans? Will America ever become an empire? Will an Augustus take the throne in Washington one day?

Talk about it in the comments section, you pathetic subjects!

Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.

If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!