Empire of the United States
In 1997 when I was traveling in Laos, I visited the Lao National Museum in Vientiane. The museum displays information about that country’s history, especially about the wars fought there. Laos is a Communist country and the museum certainly promoted this ideology. On numerous displays the word “empire” appeared in reference to the United States. I found this amusing at the time and shrugged it off as Communist propaganda designed to frame the US as evil. I was not alive when the US government fought a secret war in Laos. I have since learned about that dreadful war and the many layers of deceit that continue to cover up that part of our history.
I am alive now as the US fights openly in Iraq. I am no longer in denial about the imperialist policies that our government advances throughout the world. I want to know what we can do to change those policies. I would like to propose that we start with the assumption that the US is an empire and has been for quite some time now. We need to address what kind of empire it is. What is its history? What kind of empire do we want it to become? For what do we want to be remembered in national museums throughout the world?
Simply pulling out of Iraq will not end US atrocities abroad. We must address the nature of US power in all parts of the world where our military presides—overtly and covertly, in the past, present and future.
Our founding fathers believed that democracy and a balance of power keep governments in check. First we need to address the imbalance that has crept into our government. I am suggesting that we break the President’s powers into two offices: one that addresses domestic concerns and one that addresses foreign policies. In this way we could have a separate election that focus public attention on US foreign policies and not allow ourselves to be manipulated by domestic issues into unnecessary wars. Imagine if the President could focus his or her attention on education, justice, public health and domestic commerce, while this new office would focus on international relations, global environmental concerns and promoting world peace.
Secondly we need to ensure that leaders are constantly accountable to the people they govern. If democratic elections ensure that politicians serves the public good, then a global democratic system is necessary to ensure that the US Empire serves the needs of all the people affected (and endangered) by its policies. I suggest that this new office be made accountable to the entire empire by holding elections in all places where our military is present. Imagine if we gave one seat on the Electoral College to every country where our military is stationed for more than five years. How would this alter our leader’s approach to sovereign nations? A leader would be much less likely to invade Iraq, Southeast Asia or Central America, because those military actions would have to serve the needs of those voters abroad, as well as his or her constituents in the US.
These are just two ideas to help promote better foreign policies. The intent is to force policymakers to acknowledge that we are all part of an interconnected web of life and to act within that framework. Terrorism is the wrong way to demonstrate this interconnectivity. Instead we must invent better systems of governance that check abuses of power. If you have other ideas I would love to hear them.
Vientiane, Laos
N/A
Not specified
Owning Empire and Global Governance
I agree that we need to own the fact that we are an empire. In the context of framing, this can mean one of two things. Either we own the empire by taking responsibility for it by identifying it (as in to treat it as one of your own), or we own it by feeling entitled to the right to control the empire (as in to own a car). For me, it means we should take responsibility for the fact that we are members of an empire and identify with our respective roles in its actions. This is the progressive framing of the word own because it expresses the pathway to empathy. The control frame is conservative in that it express the right to authority over something that is deemed unquestionable.
We need to take responsibility for our empire and reel it in. This is not an easy thing to do, of course. My initial reaction to discovering the atrocities committed by the United States in the names of economic and political self-interest was to refuse to own the United States. I stopped calling myself an American and refused to identify with the empire I was born into. Later I realized this to be problematic because I want to change the empire. I cannot do this without taking responsibility for it by working to change the country of my citizenship.
A thought I have about the idea of splitting the Presidential office into two parts is a bit broader than smm's suggestion is to alter the nature of representation in the United Nations by making member states accountable to some reasonable form of global democracy in all participating countries. Imagine if not only the U.S. President were to answer to the global populace, but if the Sudanese leaders who are currently supporting genocide in Darfur were to answer in the same manner. Much thought would need to go into the policies underlying such a mechanism, and it would challenge the framing of global governance as being comprised of sovereign nations, so it would definitely not be popular initially. But it is worth pondering to see if a progressive compromise could be achieved.
Empire - formerly "Voting" (why?)
- I agree emphatically that Americans need to own empire, in the progressive sense of that verb. And, unfortunately, we do own it in the sense of owning a car. By virtue of being born American citizens, this is our heritage, along with the stellar contribution of the U.S. Constitution.
The key thing right now is for Americans to learn they have an empire. I only found out 2 months ago that the United States has over 1,000 bases all over the globe. That really helped me to understand that there is an American Empire. Like most Americans, I knew this government had bases, but I did not understand the pervasive nature of the U.S. military's globe-arching reach... and I am a progressive who has been paying attention, especially in the past 5 years!
I am part of a weekly vigil for peace that has been going since April. The protest sign "No American Empire" is the one that has gotten people to come over and ask us what we mean by that. Once a man with a foreign-sounding accent came over and thanked us for displaying the sign because he said that Americans don't generally know they have an empire.
As US citizens interested in using framing to further progressive values and action, for me the questions on this forum regarding empire are: "How do we frame this so that US Citizens who are biconceptual - i.e. see some issues through a nurturing parent lens and others through a strict father lens -- will understand that we do have An American Empire? How do we frame this so that they will understand that this Empire is in direct contradiction to our stated values, as in the U.S. Constitution? How do we frame it so that they will be motivated to work with us to end American Empire?
Constitutional Basis
America has clearly become an empire, but is it not still bound by the constitution we already have? I do not think the idea of splitting the presidency into two positions is feasible. First of all, this would require amending the constitution and if we are really going to spend the energy amending the constitution, I think we should start by adding an explicit right to privacy. Secondly, in terms of executive power, there is really no need to amend the constitution. The constitution we already have, if it were to be actually followed, would accomplish the goal that you seek. This is because the power that is bestowed, by the people, to the president is the national security power as commander in chief. The president was never envisioned as one to oversee domestic issues of public health and education. It is only in the last 100 years that the federal government was involved in those areas at all. The president also has appointment power such that he can focus the direction of agencies that do act in the areas of public health and education, but those appointments are only for programs created by legislative action.
Therefore, so long as we are going to continue to be a country created as a federal republic by the constitution, we already have a split between domestic and foreign action. What we really need to do is make sure our ELECTED leaders are held within the boundaries of the constitution we already have. I really do not see the end of our constitution any time soon, but we need to take back constitutional originalism from conservatives. The original constitution has the protections already built into it that we can use to check executive power!
Did we vote for Empire ?
The US seems bent on world domination. We ARE an empire now...and it is bankrupting us both financially and morally. It is clearly not a subject for discussion when elections are at stake.
Probably the only way to preserve our Constitution is to reject the militarization of the economy and the urge to build an empire. The UK did it and is better off for it.
Clearly we need to establish an objective of promoting world peace and supporting international law as a way of regaining the moral high ground.
Check out http://www.seconnecticut.com/empire.htm
New! State of the Oligarchy
Mind you, I was a European History major at an Ivy League institution so you'd think I would know quite a lot about empires and their rise and fall. Alas, that was 10 lifetimes and two children ago, and even if I had attended class regularly, I imagine much of that knowledge would have been pushed out of my brain by now.
I find fascinating your suggestion about splitting the presidency into two spheres of power. Unfortunately, I think that proposition is not going to be considered in the mainstream anytime soon.
But I could not agree more that we should start by calling the United States an empire and deciding what kind of empire we would like to be. The word has such negative connotation that people seem to shy away from even using it (unless talking about Star Wars
Thank you for these ideas. I will be thinking about them and hope to see a lively discussion on this site about how we might destigmatize "empire" and use it as a starting point for reining in our excesses.