The exceptionalism of American Empire

Stuart Clayton Miller pointed out that since the Spanish-American War at the end of 19, the topic related to American imperialism has become an anxious debate. Miller concluded that this anxiety was caused by America's pure feeling about the origin of its "innocence". As soon as European immigrants set foot on the new continent, they broke with the past simply because they experienced various new environments, that is, miraculous changes. Miller believes that textbooks, patriotic media and patriotic remarks about the rise of the United States not only fail to emphasize the American political system, but even keep a low profile or avoid mentioning the view that "the founding fathers of the United States who constructed the American Constitution were really influenced by John Locke and Thomas Hobbes". Thomas Jefferson's followers believe that the thoughts of the Scottish sages, which have been greatly rewritten, and even his unique border egalitarianism are deeply rooted in the radical tradition of Britain in the17th century. The philosopher Douglas Kellner recalled the origin of American exceptionalism and traced it back to alexis tocqueville, a French observer in19th century. Tocqueville's inference agrees that the United States is "driving alone on a road with unlimited prospects."

American exceptionalism is very popular in the United States, but its validity and results are controversial. Miller concluded that American thoughts can be divided into three schools:

Americans who blame themselves too much will exaggerate their shortcomings and cannot think as a whole in a large-scale space-time background.

At the other extreme, ultra-patriotic Americans refuse to admit that their country may have imperial achievements, and even think it is impossible. (The Monthly Review describes this phenomenon like this:' In Britain, imperialism is interpreted as the burden of charitable white people; In America, there is no such thing as an empire. "We" are only committed to protecting freedom, democracy and justice all over the world. " )

Americans who hold a middle position believe that "imperialism has deviated from the normal track."

In the 1940s and 1950s, American imperialism was widely used in China.

Since the Spanish-American War, Marxists and new leftists tend to think that imperialism is absolutely necessary. According to his point of view, American imperialism did not start from the Spanish-American War, but can be traced back to Jefferson's Louisiana land purchase case or the American Revolution before andrew jackson moved the Indians, and continues to this day. Historian Sydney Liansi concluded that since gaining independence, the United States has used all means-political, economic and military-to help and support other countries. Numerous records of American foreign-related mediation, from the early actions under the guidance of Monroe Doctrine to the cases of intervening in Middle East affairs in the 2 1 century, have traditionally been described as imperialism by the above-mentioned people. However, some imperialist critics hold a more positive view of the early actions of the United States. Patrick Buchanan, an outstanding conservative writer, concluded that modern America "is far from what the Founding Fathers expected of this young country." The latter view is usually regarded as American isolationism.

American imperialism is described by some as a myth, tolerating any degree of "recklessness and cruelty, although sometimes admitted, which is usually only temporary chaos." Noam Chomsky, a linguist and left-wing political critic, concluded that this is the strategic result of political propaganda, and the "elite-controlled media" allows "to correct and explain the definition of debate premise and reporting value at the beginning, and then explain the standard and implementation of propaganda war amount."

This critical view of history will always appear in American foreign affairs. Historian Andrew Bacevich, through the study of Charles Beard and William Appleman Williams, concluded that the foreign policy of the United States did not change fundamentally after the end of the Cold War, so the United States did not end this historical era because of the end of the Cold War. The desire to enter foreign markets to benefit the domestic economy has always been the driving force of American foreign policy.

Criticism of the American empire will extend in this direction. Buchanan, together with tariq ali, an outstanding left-wing critic at the other end of the political spectrum, came to the unanimous conclusion that the terrorist actions against the United States, such as the 9 1 1 incident, were caused by the United States' involuntary and pathological charity that tried to help other countries get rid of endless delays. Ali believes that "these (terrorist) reasons are not completely evil. Everyone involved in this action engages in selfish behavior in an altruistic way, mistaking Islam for the cause of violence and evil. Therefore, the sages said that there is always a reason why superior people let others act as suicide bombers instead of doing it themselves, because they encourage themselves with all their evil deeds. "

Professor Wade Churchill, an ethnologist, is almost the only scholar who extended this criticism to the victims of the 9 1 1 incident. He called the victim "Little Eichmann" (referring to Nazi officials who carried out the extermination plan during World War II), and he organized a political company composed of technical experts in the heart of the American global financial empire-a powerful profit-making machine that enslaved American military policy. The more popular extended explanation is different.

American discourse

Ashley smith, a left-wing journalist, divided the American Empire into five categories: freedom, social democracy, Leninism, super empire, Hadt and negri. According to Smith:

The theory of freedom asserts that American policies come from specific elected people (such as the Bush administration) or political movements (such as neoconservatism), rather than the product of the essence of American political and economic system. Critics in the Democratic Party of the United States hold this view, and their typical solution to imperialism is to run for higher positions.

The theory of social democracy asserts that the U.S. imperialist policy is the result of the influence of some departments in the United States, such as commercial departments, government departments, military industries connecting military and political bureaucrats, and sometimes other industries such as oil and finance, which is also commonly known as the military-industrial complex. This consortium spontaneously profited from war funds and plundered natural resources, often at the expense of public interests. The typical solution to imperialism is to generate the pressure of checks and balances through constant public vigilance. Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA consultant on the left, holds this view; Right-wing anti-interventionists, such as Buchanan, Bassevich and Raimondeau, also hold this view, but in different forms.

The theory of "Leninism" asserts that American imperialist policies stem from the same interests of American business elites, that is, capital and commodity markets must be ensured and utilized. According to Marxists, the essence of business behavior is to control the government, and the international arms race is only a part of the international economic war, both of which are driven by the inherent expansionism of capitalism. Mande Butler, a retired general of the US Navy, once said that his job is to act as a "muscular man of big companies". . The typical solution to imperialism is the commercial revolution. This theory was put forward by Bolshevik, Lenin and Bukharin during the First World War, based on the arguments of early Marxists, socialists and anarchists. Ali, Foster, others, including Smith himself, all hold this view, but each has different forms.

The theory of "super-imperialism" is similar to Leninists in the origin of imperialism, but it replaces the commercial integration of a single country with the theory of global economic interdependence. So for developed countries, military and economic integration is more common than international wars. The core of the modern imperialist dispute lies between developed countries and third world countries, not between imperialist powers. Political scientists Leo Penney and Samuel Kintin hold this view.

The theory of "Hadt and negri" asserts that the Leninists say that although it is correct, the United States is no longer an empire in the traditional sense, because the world has passed the era of imperialism and entered the new century. (See note). Tyranny and colonial power still exist in this new century, but it has changed from a military force supported by real economy to a biological dynamic network based on knowledge and perceptual economy. From this perspective, the United States has developed in the middle and shaped a new global regime with both power and sovereignty. Although it is called an empire, it is a global empire with decentralized power and is not under the jurisdiction of a single government. Michael Hardt, a literary theorist, and Negri, a philosopher, concluded that "the United States of America does live in the privileged part of the empire, but this privilege does not come from its similarities with the old European empire, but from its differences." Hadt and negri extracted the arguments of Spinoza, Foucault, Deleuze and Italian independent Marxists. The critical theorists of international relations, James De Deland and Jean Bourguia, hold relevant views, but they are poorly organized, just like typical post-colonialism, post-modernism and globalization.

Main items: list of American overseas military bases

Those who support the United States as a true empire point out that American overseas military bases are not necessarily supported by the majority of public opinion in the host countries, and are symbols of the empire. In addition, the joint operations command, which integrates multiple services and divides the world into five major military responsibility areas, is also regarded as a symbol of the empire. At least one author, Joyce Johnson, pointed out that this military base is an American version of a colony. Professor Chip Pitts believes that the American Empire is an existing entity, but it proves that it exists in the goodwill of the American people and policy makers, thus refuting all kinds of arguments produced during the Iraq war, such as neo-colonialism in the military sense, which is the premise of restoring domestic civil rights and rebuilding the freedoms and human rights violated by the imperial president, and is also indispensable for peace and stability in the Middle East and other places. In fact, the United States is the country that launched the most wars after World War II. America's war behavior led to the bloodiest crimes against humanity and humanitarian disasters after World War II.

"There is no so-called American Empire" faction.

Many Americans defend their country's historical position and refute "evil" remarks such as American imperialism. This practice is especially common among politicians who lead the trend. Former Secretary of Defense Tang Nuo Rumsfeld is an example. He said: "We don't pursue imperial rule. We are not an empire, and we have never been. "

On the other hand, the American occupation of the Philippines in the early 20th century may be the most frequently cited example of American military intervention in foreign countries in an imperialist way. However, the conservative military historian Max Bout defended the military's actions in the Philippines, saying that the local "atrocities" were irrelevant; In its view, the motive of the United States is good, and in the long run, this move is beneficial to both the United States and the Philippines.

Bout concluded that the United States launched the Spanish-American War out of altruism to liberate Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Filipinos enslaved by tyranny. If the US military really stays in the Philippines for a long time, it is also to protect Filipinos, resist European predators and teach American democracy. What the United States has done in the Philippines is its usual pattern:' The United States sets up a police force, that is, a paramilitary police force composed of local people and led by Americans, and then cooperates with the local police to manage various public services, from vaccination to school establishment to tax collection. Despite the resentment of Americans, they are usually proved to be more efficient and less corrupt than the previous government ... Fair elections are the most important thing, because once the elected government is established, Americans think they can retire. "

Bout concluded that this move is very different from the "old imperialism that plundered the natural resources of various countries." For the "poorest countries", such as Iraq and Afghanistan, in the early 20th century, the United States was reluctant to intervene (such as Argentina and Costa Rica). The countries with the least aid from the United States-Nicaragua, Haiti and Dominica-have been occupied for the longest time ... Compared with the Dutch in East India, the British in Malaysia or the French in Indonesia, the difference is that the United States has not left any economic development. '

Stuart Creighton Miller claimed that this explanation of devotion to the country and irrelevance is not common among historians.

"Charity Empire"

In fact, Bout is willing to use "imperialism" to describe American policy, not only in the early 20th century, but "at least from 1803". But this is mainly a different word. Bout still believes that American foreign policy has always been based on goodwill. Bout is not a case. Charles Chruse, an American conservative columnist, silently wrote:' People are coming out of the word' empire'. People are now starting to walk out of the closet of the word "empire". ) Many neoconservatives accept the word empire, such as the British historian Paul Qiang Sen, and writers Xu Ting Di Shouzhe and Mark Stern. Some liberal hawks hold the same attitude, such as politicians Tsibiniu Brezinski and michael ignatieff.

Niall ferguson, a professor of English history at Harvard University, is an example. He believes that the United States is indeed an empire, but American imperialism is a good thing. Ferguson compared the imperial roles of the British Empire and the United States in the late 20th century and the early 20th century, and thought that the political and social structure of the United States was closer to the Roman Empire than that of the British Empire. Ferguson concluded that all the above empires have their positive and negative aspects, but if the American empire can learn from history, its positive value will greatly cover up its negative significance.

"Imperialism Deviates from the Normal Track" School

Another view is that the overseas expansion of the United States is recognized as an act of imperialism, but this imperialism is regarded as a temporary phenomenon, the fall of American ideals, or a legacy of the past. Historian Samuel flug Bemis concluded that the expansionism caused by the Spanish-American War was a short-lived imperialist impulse and a "great deviation in American history", which was completely different from the territorial expansion in the early days of the founding of the People's Republic of China. Historian Walter lafayette doesn't think this is prejudice, but the culmination of American expansion to the west. But both agreed.

Victor Davis Han Sen, a right-wing historian, concluded that the United States does not attempt to rule the world, but maintains a mutually beneficial system that can affect the whole world; If we exercise imperialism, we rule a strange empire ... since the Spanish-American War, the United States has not annexed any territory ... imperialist powers command and other countries obey. But as far as we are concerned, we provide strategic reassurance, policy support and even funds to Turkey ... The isolationism, parish system and narcissism in American national character far exceed the greed of overseas adventurism. "

Neo-liberal views. John Eikenbury, a scholar of international relations, concluded that international organizations have filled the gap in the empire: "The United States is indeed engaged in imperialism, especially for the peripheral weak countries. But the relationship between the United States and Europe, Japan, China and Russia cannot be called imperialism ... don't even consider using force or threatening to use force. Their economies are highly interdependent ... the way they form political order is through bargaining, mutual benefit, a series of government-related organizations and purposeful management. This is not an empire, but a democratic order under the leadership of the United States. There is neither a name nor a precedent to follow. " Joseph Ni, an international relations scholar, concluded that the strength of the United States is increasingly based on soft power, that is, cultural hegemony, rather than military and economic strength. As far as influence is concerned, people all over the world generally want to emigrate to the United States. The proportion of high-quality international students in American universities remains high, and American pop music and movies can be seen everywhere. Therefore, no matter how dominant the United States is in these aspects, it is no longer an empire in the traditional sense.

This view may be the mainstream or official explanation of American history. American intelligence agencies wrote:' Except Alaska was bought from Russia in 1867, the territory of the United States has not changed since 1848. Since the 1890 s, Americans who have got rid of the shackles of empire with a new spirit of expansion are not comfortable ruling an empire by themselves. American troops withdrew from Cuba in 1902 ... The Philippines gained ... 1946 full autonomy. Puerto Rico became a dominion ... Hawaii became a state in 1959.