The Exit Strategy of Empire

undefined

The Roman Empire never doubted that it was the defender of civilization. Its good intentions were peace, law and order. The Spanish Empire added salvation. The British Empire added the noble myth of the white man’s burden. We have added freedom and democracy.

— Garet Garrett, Rise of Empire

The first step in creating Empire is to morally justify the invasion and occupation of another nation even if it poses no credible or substantial threat. But if that’s the entering strategy, what is the exit one?

One approach to answering is to explore how Empire has arisen through history and whether the process can be reversed. Another is to conclude that no exit is possible; an Empire inevitably self-destructs under the increasing weight of what it is — a nation exercising ultimate authority over an array of satellite states. Empires are vulnerable to overreach, rebellion, war, domestic turmoil, financial exhaustion, and competition for dominance.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

In his monograph Rise of Empire, the libertarian journalist Garet Garrett (1878–1954), lays out a blueprint for how Empire could possibly be reversed as well as the reason he believes reversal would not occur.  Garrett was in a unique position to comment insightfully on the American empire because he’d had a front-row seat to events that cemented its status: World War II and the Cold War. World War II America already had a history of conquest and occupation, of course, but, during the mid to late 20th century, the nation became a self-consciously and unapologetic empire with a self-granted mandate to spread its ideology around the world.

A path to reversing Empire

Garrett identifies the first five components of Empire:

the dominance of executive power: the White House reigns over Congress and the judiciary.

the subordination of domestic concerns to foreign policy: civil and economic liberties give way to military needs.

the rise of a military mentality: aggressive patriotism and obedience are exalted.

a system of satellite nations in the name of collective security;

and a zeitgeist of both zealous patriotism and fear: bellicosity is mixed with and sustained by panic.

These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order.

Garrett did not directly address the strategy of undoing Empire but his description of its creation can be used to good advantage. The first step is to break down each component of Empire into more manageable chunks. For example, the executive branch accumulates power in various ways. They include:

By delegation — Congress transfers its constitutional powers to the president.

By reinterpretation of the Constitution by a sympathetic Supreme Court.

Through innovation by which the president assumes powers that are not constitutionally forbidden because the Framers never considered them.

By administrative agencies that issue regulations with the force of law.

Through usurpation — the president confronts Congress with a fait accompli that cannot easily be repudiated.Entanglement in foreign affairs makes presidential power swell because, both by tradition and the Constitution, foreign affairs are his authority.

Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself.

A sixth component of Empire

But in Rise of Empire, Garet Garrett offers a chilling assessment based on his sixth component of Empire. There is no path out. A judgment that renders prevention all the more essential.

That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it becomes a “prisoner of history” in a trap of its own making. He writes, “A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power.”

In his book For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard expands on Garrett’s point: “[The] United States, like previous empires, feel[s] itself to be ‘a prisoner of history.’ For beyond fear lies ‘collective security,’ and the playing of the supposedly destined American role upon the world stage.”

Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire — imprisonment — comes directly after the two components of “a system of satellite nations” and, “a complex of vaunting and fear.”

Satellite nations

“We speak of our own satellites as allies and friends or as freedom loving nations,” Garrett wrote. “Nevertheless, satellite is the right word. The meaning of it is the hired guard.” Why hired? Although men of Empire speak of losing China [or] Europe … [how] could we lose China or Europe, since they never belonged to us? What they mean is that we … may lose a following of dependent people who act as an outer guard.”

An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America’s modern system of satellites. “We must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid — though that is vital — it also means real programs of economic and technical assistance.“

In contrast to a Republic, Empire is both a master and a servant because foreign pressure cements it into the military and economic support of satellite nations around the globe, all of which have their own agendas.

Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere of fear  — real or created — drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those policies. In his introduction to Garrett’s book Ex America, Bruce Ramsey addresses Garrett’s point. Ramsey writes, Empire has “‘less control over its own fate than a republic,’ he [Garrett] commented because it was a ‘prisoner of history’, ruled by fear. Fear of what? ‘Fear of the barbarian.’”

It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy’s savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties, police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each other.

The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also “vaunting.” Vaunting means boasting about or praising something excessively — for example, to laud and exaggerate America’s role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest; vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that “there is soon a point from which there is no turning back….The argument for going on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, ‘Shall we break the heart of the world?’ So now many are saying, ‘We cannot let the free world down’. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like.”

Conclusion

In this manner, Garrett believed, Empire imprisons itself in the trap of a perpetual war for peace and stability, which are always stated goals. Yet, as Garrett concluded, the reality is war and instability.

It is not clear whether he was correct that Empire could not be reversed. Whether or not he was, it is at its creation that Empire is best opposed.

Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
General
General
September 23, 2017 5:01 pm

The Soviet Empire ended without major bloodshed.

jamesthedeplorablewanderer
jamesthedeplorablewanderer
September 23, 2017 7:28 pm

Most of this is delusional, on the part of everyone. If the US decided to go isolationist, would the world stop turning? If we quit policing the oceans, would trade stop due to piracy? What would happen in the satellites? I would imagine some regimes would change, with attendant bloodshed and loss of resources. I can imagine lots of negative outcomes – authoritarian regimes controlling straits to their advantage, new wars to settle old scores, loss of easy access and credit-based commerce – but the world would keep on keeping on, in different and perhaps unpleasant ways.
But we can’t keep on going the way we are, it’s unsustainable. So decide – gradual change and withdrawal to vital interests only, or the sudden and unpredictable breakdown of what we think we can command. There are other, in-between possibilities, but as it is, the destinations are pretty similar – controlled withdrawals or unsustainable sudden collapse. I know where I would vote.

xrugger
xrugger
September 23, 2017 9:42 pm

The trouble with the notion of “controlled withdrawal” from empire is that those who benefit most from the continuance of empire would have to suddenly become something other than what they have shown themselves to be. Fundamental change would have to occur: Hubris to humility. Selfishness to altruism. Lust for power to generosity of spirit. Jingoism to true patriotism.
Such personal alchemy is rare to the point of non-existence and the Constitution is no political philosopher’s stone for the nation.

Sadly, human history is replete with examples of exactly the reverse of such change. Humble men become prideful. Republics embrace tyranny. Hubris eats out the substance of both, leaving them pitiless, friendless and hollow. The former, if he’s lucky, dies a quiet, though lonely death. The latter nearly always dies in violence and upheaval.

The course of American Empire will be no different. Her people will not be spared the ravages of history. The venality of the leaders is matched only by the self-delusion of the led. A once free people wails, “Lie to us so that we may continue in our delusion.” “Tell us that everything is going to be alright so we may continue to demolish the future for the sake of a comfortable present.” The blind who lead the blind are only too happy to oblige because they believe they will not suffer the consequences they so blithely inflict on the deluded masses that follow them. Lampposts and the noose await such people. It has always been so.

The stone of this fourth turning continues to grind and the American Empire is more grist for the mill.

Hershel
Hershel
September 23, 2017 9:47 pm

When the Roman empire ended, barbarians were already becoming citizens and in the military traitorously. Their allegiance was to their occupied country, not Rome. Today its called green on blue attacks. Also the occupied barbarians are immigrating in the millions to the heart of the empire. South Americans into North America, Africans into europe Asians into Australia, war refugees into all. Their culture at least a little more resistant to the dissipative social engineering we have, not different to roman orgies or feeding christians to lions then and feminists and gays now.

The answer to the question of if the process can be reversed needs to look at other examples. The Dutch, Spanish, French and British all had empires. All the former colonies gained independence after WW2, mostly relatively peacefully but some not without a fight like Vietnam/French Indochina. The European home countries havent totally collapsed as a result, at least not right away. Printing up euros, pounds, yen and USD backed by nothing until they become worthless, manwhile becoming ever more weak and insane as a culture is called becoming more civilized. Maybe the next stage will be a lot more severe, there is no real exit, it has to collapse and the srrongest survivors become the barbarians again.