US Imperialism?

[Redalgo]

I voted "No/Good"

The U.S. could have fairly been described as imperialist at several points in its history but at the present seems to be more hegemonist, insofar as the States is not interested in having strongly protectionist policies, engaging in expansionary conquests for territory, or maintaining unequal economic relationships internationally. It instead seeks to wield diplomatic influence to advance its own national interests, achieve and sustain military and economic supremacy over other countries, and be strategically positioned to defeat (or simply out-compete) countries that maneuver to overtake its status as a superpower in one respect or another. At present, it is our transnational and multinational corporations - not the government - that aggressively negotiate lopsided terms of trade, and the States' extraordinary military presence around the world is merely a relic of Cold War geopolitics which has yet to lose its popularity to an extent sufficient for it all to wither away.

In my opinion, the best case to make for the U.S. being a modern-day imperialist power would be if we discuss imperialism in terms of culture. It's not unknown in our contemporary political culture for leaders to regard our customs and heritage as superior to those of other peoples (nationalism, American exceptionalism, etc.), want to project their values onto other countries (e.g., the global gag rule and placing sanctions on certain other countries), or try to globalize our political-economic order (e.g. neo-conservatism and neoliberalism). Support for globalization in terms of economics in particular has the United States indirectly exerting cultural influences abroad to other countries to an extent much more profound in its overall impact than their influences tend to have on cultures here (which actually happens to be a factor in generating anti-American sentiments in some parts of the developing world). This kind of imperialism appears to be a lot more persistent than others.

Then again, can it really be considered imperialism if there is not a deliberate intent on the part of American policymakers to subordinate the ways of life adhered to by folks living in other regions of the world to, or supplant them outright with, American equivalents? Or would you argue that more than a mere minority of our leaders actually harbor such sentiments in one form or another? Would you all say that American imperialism has been a constant, by the way, or rather something which has ebbed and flowed in its intensity from one era in its history to the next?

As for Niall Ferguson, I have never heard of the bloke. O.o

[Redalgo]

I would kindly submit that (a.) foreign intervention and imperialism are not necessarily the same thing, and (b.) during the Cold War the U.S. was actively involved in supporting authoritarianism as a means to achieving its more often than not selfish ends. One might say that we engaged in both acts of "good" and (unnecessary) "evil" abroad, just as the Soviets did. The States wreaked plenty of havoc around the world, though in fairness the number & scope of misdeeds committed by each side were certainly not equal. And despite the human rights abuses being notable in Iraq, North Korea, and the PRC over the courses of their respective histories, I am still inclined to argue that they have caused less suffering and oppression on an international scale than the United States.

Hmm, or maybe not? Now that I think about it, I'm not sure which regimes the PRC propped up. xD