The Future of America's Empire
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-07-14/future-americas-empire
A look at how the U.S. chooses to use its power in the world and lessons to be learned the rise and fall of empires through the ages.
Guests
Bruce Fein
former associate deputy attorney general, Republican counsel during the Iran-contra hearings, and founding partner with the Lichfield Group
David Cole
professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center and author of "The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable". Previous books include "Less Safe, Less Free," and "Terrorism and the Constitution."
David Frum
editor, FrumForum.com, dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.
author of "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again", and co-author of "An End to Evil: What's Next in the War on Terror;" former speechwriter and special assistant to President George W. Bush (2001-02).
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Often there is a countervailing force in the world that we need to offset; Russia in the Cold War and China and Islamic Fundamentalism now. I think we are fighting the right fight, we just haven't changed our tactics especially when it comes to maintaining a presence in Germany, Korea, Japan...
(Wonderful show today, Diane. Thanks!)
David Frum sure brings some weak and mealy-mouthed arguments to support his opinions. He's a smart man; if this is the best he can do I guess he's wrong and knows it.
It is obvious that the modern USA is increasingly unhinged and unstable: it's far too big, too complex, and entirely unmanageable by a single entity (the federal government). The federal elites - along with the elites in the mass media, academia, law, and so on - are also more and more unhinged and unstable, alternately corrupt and neglectful.
It is doubtful that the USA will last another 10 years, even 5 years. Like the USSR, it will likely break up in to smaller and more manageable nation-states based along ethnic/racial and cultural lines. This is just as the Founding Fathers intended: states' rights vs. overwhelming federal power.
Although the author has some points to be concerned about his categorization that we are fighting against "a tactic" is wrong. The current "war on terror" is definitely misnamed. But that doesn't, and it is not against a country. But the war is against a movement that uses "a tactic" of terror with a strategy of attrition with the goal of domination. His use of the term empire is pure hyperbole.
Frum ignores the 'banana republics' in South America and other examples of overbearing influence by the USA. Also, Frum only refers to the USA cooperative relationship with Western European countries and a few other countries, e.g. Japan.
Frum seems to espouse, in a nuanced and calmer manner, some of the misinformation spewed by Limbaugh and Hannity.
David Fromm: are you an empire if you can enter into an undeclared war (not constitutional) and then threaten, bribe or embarrass other countries to enter that same war in order to give us a Public Relations advantage?
Is it an Empire when the President can stampede his nation into a war (I think to prove something to his Daddy) by not asking for a Declaration of War, but asking Congress for "Authorization" of unspecified actions, just a few months before an election?
And then, refusing to even put 2 wars on the budget for 8 years?
Imperial behavior by the President, and a completely gutless performance by Congress.
What is the difference between national security and "our national interests?" To what extent do we claim a right to meddle in the world because of out addiction to resources such as oil, and our reluctance to look at sustainability?
It is disturbing how chummy we are with corrupt governments when we want something from them.
This is all a bit of a naive and weak argument. America has a kind of empire, but it is like Rome -- an empire of trust vs. an empire of commerce or conquest. Like them, the empire 'accidentally' happened over time, essentially as a response to the outside world always coming in. It's naive to think that we can just go back behind our oceans when we are this big and this powerful. So we've done what the Romans have -- built a series of alliances, where we are 'first among equals' but with the purpose of peace and prosperity. And for the most part it works. Other nations may have polls that show they love or hate us, depending on events and who is the President, but ask them if they want a world where America is NOT the leading country in the world -- and you get a very different answer. Like it or not, our empire of trust is useful to us and to them.
It is the power and reach of the U.S. Dollar that classifies us as an "Empire".
It is profoundly disappointing that Prof. Cole insists on framing these issues in partisan terms. President Obama blew away the War Powers Act when he escalated the Afghan war and tripled the number of targeted assassinations by drones, without even going threw the montions of seeking a Congressional resolution of support. Press on Bruce Fine!
Your contention is invalid. Unlike the USSR, the USA is already made up of nation states. We need to return the power to the states which our founders originally gave them. The federal govn needs to be limited to international relations, defense of the country as a whole and mediation of disputes between individual states. The federal govn has no business in education, health, welfare, or any other areas of control belonging to the states.
Dimitry Orlov makes similar points in his book "reinventing Collapse" (2008). His comparison with the fall of the USSR is very chilling. I think the American Empire, weather classical or a new economic or cultural type, is quite vulnerable not only because of political rot, over reaching war and economic shenanigans, but the rapidly developing energy shortages as compared to demand. Please comment on Peak Oil and Orlove's views if you know the book.
Mark
Fennville MI
The many of the problems today are a direct result of Congress taking power from the Executive. Until Nixon, presidents were much more powerful. Jackson defied the Supreme Court, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, Roosevelt imprisoned Japanese Americans. What we have now is a weak Executive that has to go to Congress with hat-in-hand to beg for any powers it wants. We were attacked on 9/11 because of our weak Executive.
A main problem is that the corrupt modern elites are full-blown internationalists who care much more about various world affairs than the internal welfare of the USA and its citizens. Frum proves this again and again by skewing the conversation constantly in to foreign policy instead of focusing on America's domestic affairs. America has major internal problems, and we need to focus on those instead of continuing to get bogged down in foreign misadventures.
America's modern elites fiddle around in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, and so on while internally the USA is slowly falling apart. The apple rots from within.
Your panelists spoke of the powers of the presidency. The fact that the executive branch has taken great power in the last 50 years is a canard. The constitution clearly states that the right to declare war rests solely with the senate. The actions of nearly every president since WW2 regarding the military have been unconstitutional and illegal. The constitution grants the commander in chief the right to mobilize the military in emergency action. A war of many years length is not emergency action, and we should hold the senate accountable for allowing presidents to take such illegal and unconstitutional action.
The economic dimension, which Bruce Fein ignores in his cautions, is being ignored, except by forum commentators and emailers. This country is an economic oligarchy as recently discussed on Bill Moyers Journal (now quashed). Wars are used to advance the economic interests of an elite minority. (The same tendency undermined Rome.) The increased polarization of wealth and ownership would be bad enough, but because the oligarchic interests steer law (ex: Supreme Court) the intensity of the divide between the rich and the poor is rapidly intensifying on a global scale. Even the lip service to global relief in disaster situations has become mostly a profitmaking venture ("Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein). The boogeyman of national debt with which poorer American taxpayers are now being threatened is a cudgel of the rich over powerless and poorly informed Americans, while meanwhile they refuse to surrender one perk (Bush tax cuts) to relieve the crisis they define. I have given up on the Empire like Bruce Fein and refuse to walk around in a fog like Frum and Cole. I only hope we can salvage a democracy as our fortunes decline because we have given our all to the ideal of wealth (the success ethic).
Ms. Rehm, please ask Mr. Fein why he switched from the Bush administration to counter the actions of Bush?
To Fromm: I remember when the last Administration was debating whether or not to even go to Congress before invading Iraq. They found that it would be politically troublesome to invade without going to Congress first.
They were not enthusiastic about asking Congress for any cooperation. They just wanted to do what they wanted to do.
Just another objectionable object dropped into the punch bowl by David Fromm.
Al-Qaeda's goal is domination? Hardly. Their goal is to roll back our domination.
It's about time that someone started asking: What are we doing in Afghanistan? What country are we going to invade next - Iran? Somalia? We are feeding the war beast. Why? Why? Why? Why does General David Petraeus get a free pass from Congress?
George W. Bush said it himself: "War is good for the economy." But he was wrong. We are losing our national treasure, our moral standing in the world...and our souls.
Frum's patronizing attitude that he is correct in all things just doesn't impress me. It holds the stench of the Bush administration, and I hope our country has progressed beyond that kind of political arrogance.
@schaz
I think your sarcasm is a bit too subtle for an online discussion. People are going to think you're serious.
Great show today.
Although I have been listening to your program for a while, today's show was quite good.
Perhaps one key area of analysis missed today was the "necessity," if you will, of Empire for our high standard of living. One of your callers made a cogent narrative of Empire from its inception. Each piece of new land, group subjugated, or market under U.S. control gave the society access to wealth, markets, and so on. Slowly but surely, and in a perverse way, the US empire replaced the British Empire during most of the XX C. The major difference is the British were very proud of Empire. In the US folks grow up thinking that the high standard of living is the result of "American" ingenuity, and so on, and not the product of wars, and the control of the resources of others. This has led to a sad case of "Imperial Nostalgia" even your prestigious guests seem to be feeling. Perhaps the "end" of Empire began with Vietnam, but Bush moved the post closer. The result is an over extended military and a bankrupt nation. My fear is that since most folks in the US cannot fathom being "less" than "number one" it will be a nasty and bloody end of empire. Not even a liberal President like Obama will be willing to dismantle the empire.
Luis
The US has become imperialist. I found the discussion to be very good, and Bruce Fein's observations relevant to the current place and time. The only ingredient missing was how and why, which in my mind, always leads back to corporate money, and it's incestuous place within the Federal Government. I don't believe the US makes decisions based upon policing other countries and their governments. Conversely, it appears the US makes decisions based upon oil, drug money, and in the case of Afghanistan, mineral deposits.
Grady Lee Howard --Thanks for posting. Perfectly stated.
Hi,
Sometime in the 1980s I went to a lecture by Jane Jacobs at the 92nd St. Y in New York City. Her presentation was not well taken by the audience. In the lecture Ms. Jacobs made "predictions" on the "end" of what she called "mega nations." These Mega Nations, as in the case of the Soviet Union, China and the US were put together by force and required an insurmountable amount of coercion to keep together. She thought that all three Mega Nations would become "undone" during the XXI century. She also suggested, like you, that these nations would regroup as smaller regional states with a clearer identity. The "problem" will be that the resulting states could not maintain the standard of living produced by the larger entity. In the case of the US it could bring real disruption and possibly another "uncivil" war.
I think you at NPR should know that you have been hacked. When I tried to call in, I got a message to call another 800 number. When I called it I got a phone-sex site and promptly hung up.
No one seems to get it. Empires are principally designed for control in the homeland's heart. This is why George Bush widely exceeded his constitutional authority, why his rightwing cronies pushed global hegemony, and why we now find ourselves enmeshed in endless war. This is to maintain power right here at home, a tactic right out of Machiavelli.
David Fromm is an obvious kneejerk rightwing ideologue, who political loyalty, economic prosperity, and self-identity is heavily entwined with the rightwing oligarchic socio-economic machine in the country. Is it any wonder why he defend the indefensible and attempts at every turn to obfuscate the issues? Duh!
I was pleased to hear the whole issue of "American Empire" being discussed on the show. Main-stream media pays little or no attention to this concept or perspective. However, the subject is prolifically covered in the numerous, non-main-stream (tributary) news sources.
I quite fear for the existence of our country, and concur with Mr. Fein's perspective, viewing what I see as its decline and fall.
Socio-economic inequality, a bought and paid for government, the military-industrial complex (MIX), unjustifiable military aggression/intervention, relentless exploitation of the natural environment, and an arrogance and self-centered approach in determining which countries are "evil", and which are not. All in all, NOT sustainable!
I must say that it is extremely unlikely that the USA will fracture. We have the longest lasting and strongest republic in modern history. Yes, we have difficulties. But I do not see anything that might happen which would cause our nation to be fragmented. In general our citizens are proud to be americans, and I cannot see the good people of this nation being willing to fight and kill one another over another civil war. I know there are many conspiracy theorists out there who are very worried about such things. Rest assured, regardless of our nation's difficulties, the people are one, and some day we will form a more perfect union in a peaceful way.