With all due respect, Tony Blankley is wrong. In an excellent editorial in the Washington Times titled, “The
Imperial Era Begins,” Mr. Blankley postulated that while individually Americans will adapt to living on terror’s
edge, the real changes will occur in how our government interacts with other countries. He sees our government
taking a more proactive and interventionist role in the world. Such actions as Afghanistan and Saddam’s impending
demise, changes we have compelled Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to make, allowing our special forces to hunt down
terrorists and insisting that other countries let them do so on their territory all point to a more interventionist
role. However, Mr. Blankley points out that America is not truly imperialist because we don’t want to gain
territory. We aren’t annexing other countries under our permanent rule. So, you might ask, where is he wrong?
Let’s examine each of his points.
First, he claims that individuals will adapt to the threats of terrorism. This is true if the increase is gradual
and sustained. There are at least three scenarios where this postulate is not true, but let’s specifically look at
the scenario that is happening. If the attacks remain infrequent, if this type of thing happens only once every
five or ten years, will we adapt to it? The efficiency of our law enforcement agencies could work against the
adaptation. If the FBI and other authorities stop 99% of attacks, people’s vigilance will decline. Hearing of
arrests and thwarted attacks will breed complacency and a sense of security. How much did we really change after
the first World Trade Center bombing? After Oklahoma City? Since last year? 9-11 was a shock, but not an ongoing
one. Will we adapt to the threat of terrorism? Maybe.
Next supposition: Our government will be more proactive and interventionist in dealing with the rest of the world.
All of our neighbors are quaking in their boots and asking, “You mean it can get worse?” Anyone who has been
exposed to Canadian culture will know they still haven’t forgiven or forgotten the War of 1812. Mexico has been
invaded and reduced so many times by the U.S. that the illegal immigration is really a counter-strike. First there
was a little side fight in the War of 1812 wherein Florida became U.S. Territory, then there was the invasion and
“liberation” of Texas, then there was 1848, and let’s not forget Woody Wilson’s incursion of the week plan. Did
anyone ever hear of Panama before Teddy Roosevelt fomented rebellion against the Columbian government after they
refused to deal on canal project rights? How did we really obtain possession of California, Florida, Guam, Puerto
Rico, and for many years the Philippines? Half of the reason people in the world hate us is because of our history
of being interventionist. Can we get much more interventionist? Is Mr. Blankley wrong in saying we will be more
interventionist? No, we could well do so, even if the rest of the world was hoping it couldn’t get any worse.
Is Mr. Blankley’s claim that America is not imperialist correct? Actually, the answer is yes for the policies we
have had in place for about the last fifty or sixty years. If anything, we have been divesting ourselves of
previous acquisitions since before World War II. That doesn’t mean the rest of the world sees it that way.
His last supposition, expressed both in title and text, is that with our heightened interventionism we enter a new
phase, an imperial period. Here he is wrong, but it could be in either direction depending on your definition of
imperial, for America either long ago or has not yet entered its imperial period. If one defines “imperial” as
having interventionist policies that do not respect the sovereignty of other nations, we’ve been doing that for no
less than 154 years. If one defines “imperial” as being like Rome or Tsarist Russia, then we aren’t there yet. We
may have as long as 100 years before we reach that point, although these last few years have definitely brought us
along the path of Empire. When, for reasons of security, either elections are suspended or the people vote to
make the President a lifetime position, then we will be into our imperial period. Students of history can see we
are nearing the brink, but we aren’t there yet. So, for those who think the U.S. is in an imperial phase, let me
assure you, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!
F. B. Knight is Curmudgeon-in-Residence at the Attila the Hun School of Management. He can be reached for questions
at
fbk@attilathehunschool.net.
