American Exceptionalism

The terms “American Empire” and “American Imperialism” are used to describe the historical expansionism as well as the current political, economic and cultural influence of the United States of America on a global scale. Furthermore, it is important to note that the term “American Empire” is also used to refer to countries that were once or still are possessions of the United States such as the Philippines or Guam after the American-Spanish war at the end of the nineteenth century.

Historian Stuart Creighton Miller states that the question of American imperialism has been a subject of debate since the United States formal acquisition of Empire status at the end of the nineteenth century. Miller suggests that the reason for such contradictory beliefs on the subject is due to Americas “exaggerated sense of innocence, produced by a kind of Immaculate Conception” view of how America came into being. (Miller 1982:1-3) Using this idea of the immaculate conception of America, Miller states that there is a view that European settlers to America completely lost their old ways upon their arrival and created a new culture based solely on their experiences in a new environment.

Philosopher Douglas Kellner claims that this belief about the creation of the United States can be seen today in school texts, patriotic media and patriotic speeches upon which Americans are reared. Furthermore, he claims that such texts blatently ignore the influences of such figures as John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes in the creation of the structure of the United States and instead put enourmous emphasis on the experiences of the Founding Farthers (Kellner 1995). As early as 1831, French observer Alexis de Tocqueville called this “American Exceptionalism” (De Tocqueville 2003) and it is a term used to refer to the perception by Americans that the United Sates differs qualitively from other developed nations because of its unique origin, culture, historical evolution, and distinctive political and religious institutions (Stanford Law Review 2003: 1479). Alexis de Tocqueville went on to state that the United States was uniquely “proceeding along a path to which no limit can be perceived.” (Miller 1982: 1-3) Due to educational and cultural teachings American Exceptionalism is popular among contemporary Americans but it’s consequences are disputed and Miller argues that the question of whether America is imperialistic falls into three schools of thought: (Miller 1982: 1-3)

1. Overly critical Americans over-exaggerate the countries flaws.

2. Highly patriotic Americans deny such abuses and claim that such activities could never be conducted by Americans.

3. Middle ground Americans claim that “Imperialism was an abberation”

Imperialist America

Miller (Miller 1982: 1-3) writes that Marxists and factions of the New Left “find it difficult if not impossible to percieve any benefits flowing from American Imperialism” because imperialism in itself is oppressive and favours inequality. From the view of Marxists and the New left American Imperialism started not with the Spanish-American war as suggested by Miller, (Miller 1982:1-3) but to Jefferson’s purchasing of Lousiana or even to the extermination of Native Americans. They make the claim that these imperialist tendencies continue to this day and that American history is “a story of continuous expansion that has left behind a long string of nonwhite victims.” (Foster 2003)

John Bellamy Foster goes on to argue that America’s belief in the American Dream is false and that the ideaological transfer of it into mainstream American culture is a propoghanda device used to create blindness to American social flaws associated with the European continent they left behind such as; militarism imperialism, inequality and the misuse of power. He suggests that as America is now the sole superpower it is the most dangerous world imperialist. (Thornton 1978).

Patrick Buchanan argues that the modern United states is engaging in excessive meddling around the world in order to succeed in an agenda of American isolationism by creating a global American empire. (Buchanan 1999)

On the otherhand Andrew Bacevich argues that American Imperialist tendencies have not changed even in modern times because American foreign policy has not drasticly changed and has been driven by the desire to access foreign markets in order to benefit the domestic econmy through exploitation and cohersion. (Bacevich 2005) The moral reason given for American foreign intervention hides the true economic reasons and Bacevich warns that American economic imperialism hidden behind a mask of globalisation may not be in the best interests of the United States. (Bacevich 2004)

This issue is agreed upon by many authors form the opposite side of the political spectrum including Tariq Ali (Ali 2005), Naom Chomsky (Chomsky 2005), Howard Zinn (Zinn 2003) and Ward Churchill (Churchill 2003) who have all argued independantly of each other that acts of terrorism against the United States, such as the September 11, 2001 attacks are the results of the United States becoming involved in places and conflicts where they were not wanted.

In support of the thesis that the United States is an Empire, imperialistic style forgein intervention are often cited, including:

-Eradication of Native Americans when establishing the United States.

-Territorial wars in Mexico.

-The Spanish-American war and Cuba and Puerto Rico.

-The Philippine-American War

-Invasion of Russia after World War One

-Intervention in the Greek Civil War during the Cold War.

-Interventions in Korea, Cambodia and Vietnam.

-Latin American interventions justified by the Monroe Doctrine. E.g. The overthrow of Salvador Allende’s governnt in Chile.

-Interference with the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

­- Support for oppressive governments in the Middle East such as the Shah's Iran, Egypt after 1972, the monarchy in Saudi Arabia, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq prior to 1991 as well as the present occupation of that Iraq.

Further to the authors already mentioned the following left wing historians also hold the view that the modern United States is imperialistic: Gore Vidal (Vidal 2004), Charles Beard (Bacevich 2004).

An offshoot of the argument that the United States is an imperial empire has been made by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Michael Ignatieff and Niall Ferguson who have drawn parallels between the Roman and British Empires in comparison to the imperial role of the United Sates in the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries. Ferguson argues that all Empires have there positive and negative aspects but that if America learns from history and its mistakes then its positive consequences should greatly outweigh its negative consequences. (Brzezinski 2004, Ignatieff 2005, Ferguson 2004)

United States Imperialism Never Existed

Miller (Miller 1982: 1-3) states that the second school of thought is the adament claim that the United States never conducted in a manner associated with imperialism. From this point of view America altruisticly went to war with Spain to liberate Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Filipinos from tyranny. They occupied post-war in order to protect them from European predators and to spread democracy, provide better transportation, mosquito control, a work ethic and protestantism. Archibald Thornton however points out that the patriotic interpretation no longer holds a position of validity with historians. (Thornton 1978).

On the other hand, and supporting the patriarchal view of the United States is Ronald Radosh’s argument that the American entrance into the Second World War is evidence that American militaristic intervention is essential for preserving freedom and preventing genocide. He goes on to state that critics of the American agenda are hypocrites who ignore the greater crimes of states such as Germany in World War Two and the Soviet Union. (Radosh 1975)

Imperialism as an Aberration

The third and final position that Miller identifies (Miller 1982: 1-3) is that of a middle ground which sees American expansion overseas as imperialistic but as an imperialistic mission to spread democracy and American ideals rather than in order to exploit. Miller goes on to say that by the end of the 19^th century this became a militaristic mission to force the American way of life on people whether they liked it or not. However, Samuel Flagg Bemis argues that the imperialist nature of the expansion in the Spanish-American war was a short lived impulse and “a great abberation in American history” (Bemis 1963) The view put forward by Bemis is held by a number of liberal internationalists such a Joseph Nye.

Nye (Nye 2005) argues that American power has beomce increasingly based on “soft power” which he describes in this paragraph:

“The basic concept of power is the ability to influence others to get them to do what you want. There are three major ways to do that: one is to threaten them with sticks; the second is to pay them with carrots; the third is to attract them or co-opt them, so that they want what you want. If you can get others to be attracted, to want what you want, it costs you much less in carrots and sticks.” (Nye 2005)

In short, Nye suggests that America influences global politics and events by having a reputation for military and cultural prowess without actually having to use them, in a similar vien to Webers comments on coercive force (Light 1975:384-385). Nyes point is that while the United states is globally dominent and influences, it is no longer an empire in the classic sense of the term.

Writers such as Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri acknowledge many of the imperialistic interventions descrbied in the “Imperialist America” section and see them as a consequence of a past American imperialism. However, they argue that America is no longer imperial in the classic sense because the world is no longer in an era of imperialism. They go on to state that this new era while not being classicly imperialist still has oppressive and colonising powers and that much of it is based in the United States of America. However, they claim that there has been a move from military force to an increased use of cultural ideaology with the onset of information societies. (Hardt and Negri 2001)

For Hardt and Negri, the United states is a central force in the development of a new global movement towards international power and sovereignty called “Empire”. However, unlike an imperial empire, the empire conceptualised by Hardt and Negri is decentralised, global and not run by one sovergein state. While this differs from an imperial empire in the classic sense, the process of cultural transference is still present and due to the eminence of American culture in modren society, the United States holds a privaledged position in this new “Empire”.

Cultural Imperialism

For the most part, it would appear that American cultural imperialism is seen as a separate debate from that of American military imperialism.

However, some critics of imperialism argue that both military and cultural imperialism occur at the same time. For example Edward Said states that;

“So influential has been the discourse insisting on American specialness, altruism and opportunity, that imperialism in the United States as a word or ideology has turned up only rarely and recently in accounts of the United States culture, politics and history. But the connection between imperial politics and culture in North America, and in particular in the United States, is astonishingly direct.” (Said 1994)

Said claims that non-Americans and in particular those of non-Western descent are often conceived of in the United States as racist in such a way that it justifies imperialism through ideologies such as Rudyard Kipling’s “White Mans Burden” (Kipling 1899) and Said’s own theory of Orientalism (Said 1978). The result of this is what is often referred to as a “civilising mission” through any means.

Another view of cultural imperialism is put forward by David Rothkop who claims that it is simply an innocent result of globalisation. Globalisation, he argues allows consumers around the world to have access to American products and ideas. Furthermore, he claims that a worldwide fascination with American culture has not been forced on anyone in ways related to historical empires such as the British Empire.(Rothkop 1997)

To summarise, it can be seen that there are a number of issues which arise with this topic. Primarily there is a concern with the definition of the word “Empire” and secondly there is the issue of whether America has ever been one.

Too add to this it would seem that the problem in answering the question lies not in a cover up of any discernable kind as is often suggested, but simply because there are no hard and fast rules as to what imperial activities involve in contemporary society. This may be due to a shift from independent Empires to interdependent “Global Communities” characterized by a shift from forced ideological influence through military force to cultural influence.

Finally it must be noted that perceptions play a large role in answering the question posed by this review be it from the perspective of academia or from the perspective of those simply taking an interest. Even within perspectives opinion is divided.