Centerfield

I’d give it 10 points. It could have had more but there were no mentions of “chimpy,” the Smirk®, or Halliburton . Back to the Daily Kos School of Journalism for him.

Who's Paul Krassner?

But seriously, the empire analogy is more defensible. And we know what eventually happens to all empires.

Wow!! Timely and vicious. Obviously the "Hitler-o-meter" can have a bonus point situation. I'm sure this blog would be willing to vote on and award extra points for such exceptional rhetoric.

It did occur to me today that if we created a "hitler-o-metter" it would need to be based on MSM stories. If we relied upon blogs and talk radio it would be a full-time job.

Tim,

The empire analogy is laughable at best. What kind of empire just gives up territory? Why would an empire bend over backward to keep from offending its enemies? (Remember those protocols for protecting the Koran?)

“Empire” like “quagmire” is code for “the United States doing anything in its own interest.”

LOL, Alf. Who are we to argue against sound bites with logic and reason?

This is the person Krassner is comparing Bush to.

Alf (and Tully):

"The empire analogy is laughable at best. What kind of empire just gives up territory?"

All of them eventually do. And I don't speak in codes.

Tim,

I forgot one word in my question. What I should have asked is what kind of empire
VOLUNTARILY gives up territory. I don’t think your answer “all of them eventually do” fits the question as it should have been asked.

I didn’t really understand the last part of your message. All of those dots and dashes are confusing to me.

Calling a fish a turkey doesn't help it fly. America does not fit the dictionary definition of empire (no emperor!) and hasn't shown much in the way of true imperialistic tendecies--territorial expansion by the forcible seizure and subordinate incorporation of other nations into the central political heirarchy. True, we're historically a meddlesome bunch, but we have a very pronounced tendency to throw 'em back after we beat 'em up.

All nations grow old, give up territory, and die. Eventually. That doesn't make all nations "empires."

1. Yet, as a country, we *have* stopped growing. We've never gone this long without a new state admitted into the union. Historically, if you change the word "empire" to "nation", a nation that stops growing is dying.

2. "Calling a fish a turkey doesn't help it fly" Sadly, it took me, like five minutes to realize that a turkey's a flightless bird, and why that was so funny..

me am slow.

As Twain said, and I think I'm paraphrasing, history doesn't repeat itself, at best, it rhymes. While I'm certainly not arguing that the US is an empire, I'd be careful about using historical comparisons, particularly ancient ones, to argue that its not. Two points on this:

Firstly, by the old definition, the Soviet Empire wasn't much of an empire. Despite its expansionist tendencies, it never, after its first few years, officially annexed other nations into its political structure. Same for China, and for that matter, the same for the British empire, though they obviously had a much more active hand in places like India than even the Soviets in their Eastern European sattelites.

Second, empire becomes even more problemtic as a term in the modern world (post WWII) where there have always been superpowers with an innordinate influence on other countries and the world at large. Given the lack of real territorial expansionism, which I think is likely to continue given the cost of actually taking over and administering a country wholesale, the point at which the influence and interference becomes empire is blurry on a good day.

Kind of OT, but just my two cents on something of interest academically, if not pragmatically, since we are ultimately talking semantics.

Sean

Ryan, if you think the genuine American wild turkey is a flightless bird, you've obviously never met one. Trust me. Real turkeys can fly. Those barnyard things are mutants.

the point at which the influence and interference becomes empire is blurry on a good day.

Sean, it may very well be that the term "empire" is archaic in the modern world. At least for the moment. But I'll stand by my definition--territorial expansion by the forcible seizure and subordinate incorporation of other nations into the central political heirarchy. In the post-WW2 era that really fits only one nation. Russia. China has been remarkably unsuccesful at it. (Yeah, they gained Tibet, but they lost Mongolia.)

Combine that with the autocratic central rule of an emperor, by any name, and you've got something like empire. But America is a democratic republic, not an autocracy. If we're an empire, we're a damn strange one.

Trying to extend the definition of political "empire" with the Marxian "cultural imperialism" dodge is bogus. Empire is forced. Expansion of culture by popular acceptance and adoption isn't imperialism, in any sense. Semantics? Yes. But you can only make the "empire" argument by making the language overly subjective--at which point you might a well call that turkey a duck.

Alf: "I don’t think your answer “all of them eventually do” fits the question as it should have been asked."

It fit the question as it was asked.

Tully:

I didn't say the U.S. was an empire. I said the analogy of empire was more defensible. Clearly we have:

1. forced our way into Iraq and despite all the rhetoric, have no intentions of leaving any time soon.

2. are building at least 16 military bases in the region, and they don't appear to be temporary

3. a navy that is deployed world wide, and regularly used as a deterrent toward unwanted/unfriendly behavior of other nations

4. beginning with the Phillipines over a century ago established political influence in any number of nations, often in opposition to the wishes of the locals

5. directly overthrown dictators (Saddam, Noriega et al) and indirectly lead to the overthrow of more legitimate leaders (Mousadek, Allende) and attempted to influence the overthrow of others with greater legitimacy (Chavez)

Dictionaries can be very useful. However, sometimes they can be a little too black and white. I thought Centerfield recognized the many shades of gray.

When is Saddam Hussein going to be part of the game. IE, when are we going to start comparing people to Saddam and how many points would that get?

For example, next time a Democrat is in the WH (whenever that is), will a conservative talk about how the president is acting like Saddam in centralizing authority?

A false analogy isn't much of an analogy at all, Tim, and is never very useful. You seem to digging for ways to rationalize stuffing America into the "empire" category for rhetorical, comparitive, and/or analytical purposes. Which Krassner does reflexively--his brain froze in the Sixties and hasn't thawed yet. For analytical purposes it's a dead end--the link is simply not there. For comparitive purposes it leads to the conclusion that the United States is NOT an empire. Which leaves rhetorical purposes, and I'll flag that one every time it pops up.

It's an appealing idea, the desire to simplify in order to more easily analyze or describe. But starting with false premises just leads to false answers and false comparisons. Yeah, my tuna/turkey comparison is also an analogy, but it's one on obvious differences and bad labelling, not false similarities.

If I tried to call a tuna a turkey because both were living creatures with "wings" to propel and steer them through non-solid media, it'd be closer to the "empire" analogy. But it still wouldn't help the tuna fly in air, or the turkey swim underwater. They would still be different things.

Something to ponder while eating our Thanksgiving tuna.

I don't think it's fair to tar Tim with the sin of "Krasnnerism." Lots of people have talked about an American empire--not all of them leftists and many not in a derogatory manner--see, Niall Ferguson and Max Boot for example.

Forget Krassner--obviously the US is not an empire in the classic sense. But we do exercise a lot of influence, if not control, over many regions of the world (not enough, probably, in some cases) and, more importantly, in some cases, we can influence what a country chooses NOT to do. Maybe you could call it "empire lite." It's not necessarily bad--it's just the way great powers operate.

Right now, being in our custody and all, I'd say a Saddam reference isn't worth that many points...

BUT, a bin Laden reference might get ya a few, just to see how many people in this government even remember who he is...

Okay Tully, I'll just go back to your earlier post...."at which point you might a well call that turkey a duck."

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck......

Except it neither walks like a duck or quacks like a duck, Tim. Which is the point--trying to push the "empire" analogy is trying to paint the nation as something it is NOT. To push that critter comparison, calling a turkey a duck doesn't make it quack. Calling a duck a turkey doesn't make it gobble. And that a duck can swim doesn't make it a tuna.

Marc, I don't accuse Tim of Krassnerism. Just of trying to support Krassner's lousy rhetorically hyperbolic analogy, for whatever purpose. And I think you hit the nail on the head--the "similarities" are hallmarks of large powers of any nature, not the hallmarks of empire. We lack the hallmarks of empire. It's like calling a turkey a duck because they both have wings, feathers, and can fly. All you've really shown is that both are birds.

To be candid, I didn't read the Krassner article in full. I found it representative of an extremist point of view, which turns me off. I think people like this guy add nothing of meaning to the debate, but will acknowledge that extremists seem to be moving the agenda forward for both major parties, which is why things are so polarized.

The dictionary definition of empire is too rigid for these complex times. A perfect example is the movement in Congress to get the administration to block the sale of UniCal to the Chinese. These congressmen and some of their constituents believe this is a threat to our security, ignoring the fact that the majority of the oil fields owned by unical (about 70%) are in Asia. The mindset is it's our natural resources by some sort of divine right. The hell with what the people in Asia think. China has accused the U.S. of behaving as if China is attacking our national security interests. They just want oil and are willing to buy it. So if, and admittedly it's a big if, we intervene citing national security, to me that's quacking like a duck.

If you read the two paragraphs, Tim, you read the whole thing. If you didn't, you didn't miss much but Krassner's comparison of W. to a twisted sexual serial killer, who until recently ran loose in my neck of the woods (the killer, not W.). I'm in absolute agreement about Krassner. And the right has their Krassner counterparts. They also mindlessly suck.

That times are complex still doesn't make us an empire, or imperialistic. The turkey still doesn't quack. If you have to redefine the label to make it fit, you're just changing the label, not the thing itself. Calling a turkey a duck still doesn't make it a duck. I suppose we could invent some new labels, instead of trying to squeeze things under the old ones.

China has accused the U.S. of behaving as if China is attacking our national security interests.

They are. And we're counter-attacking theirs. International politics as usual. Since the dawn of same. The alternative is force.

Does anyone else see China's bid to buy UniCal as possibly the first salvo in a struggle by the two energy consuming giants to control dwindling natural resources?

Throw in India, which, in no small thanks due to our relationship with Pakistan, will side with China, and I can't help but to wonder if, someday, a generation or two away, we won't find ourselves in a more "traditional" war...

I see it as the latest salvo. Compared to America, China is somewhat short on natural resources other than people.

Hmmm... perhaps another alternative energy... Soylent Green, anyone?

Naw, Soylent Green was the old and sick. Not much energy there.