Colossus

This is a book by the conservative professor who invented "virtual history." I would have given it 5 stars, were it a history, and were it mostly about the United States. Instead, it is a goad to the Bush Administration to be even more obnoxious by following the British Imperial example.

I would also have rated the book higher, had Prof Fergusson at least considered and refuted the arguments of the Left and anti-Imperialists. But, he does not do that: almost all his news sources and references are from the political right. This means the reader must beware, because Fergusson is a very good writer. It is particularly important to consider carefully his "what if" propositions, because they seem to imply more weight than his arguments really carry.

What Prof Fergusson argues is that America should be a "liberal empire," emulating pre-World War I Britain. He is bothered by Americans who seem disinclined to be New Romans. But, he also thinks Europeans are too disorganized and just plain too weak to challenge the United States and re-assert their old roles as colonial powers. For Fergusson, this leaves matters in a precarious state, as there is no persistent dominant world power.

Fergusson spends most of his effort discussing Britain and Europe. He doesn't spend a lot of print analyzing the United States. I think his method is something like this: he proposes to show how the United States would fit into the established Imperial pattern, the pattern made in England. Then he needs to show no one else fits the mold, thus the dismissal of the Europeans (and China, too).

Everything is going along perfectly, until the end, when Fergusson realizes there are,

Three Deficits

In this book I have tried to show that there are three fundamental deficits that together explain why the United States has been a less effective empire than its British predecessor. They are its economic deficit, its manpower deficit and - the most serious of the three - its attention deficit.
... Colossus p 290

Fergusson finds that the United States, unlike Britain, is a net debtor nation, so does not make investments in colonies. This is the economic deficit. In discussing the U.S. economy, Fergusson brings up every important conservative argument why the United States is going broke. This makes the book a handy compendium of conservative thought.

The manpower deficit arises from the Baby Boom: demographics. The United States simply doesn't have enough young people willing to go abroad for long stints of service. Moreover, Americans prefer going to comfy, civilized places, such as France, Italy, Spain, Germany and even England, when they go abroad, whether as tourists, expatriates or emigrants.

Fergusson makes an interesting point by connecting the "attention deficit" to the political cycle. Politics in America simply defeats anything "long term;" i.e., longer than about 2 years. Empires require long-term attention, and impose long-term burdens. So, while Fergusson identifies the United States as a de facto Imperial State, he thinks it fails its duties miserably. If there is no Pax Americana, it is only because the United States government has not grabbed what is right in front of it.

I agree with Prof Fergusson, that the United States is an Imperial power, but it does seem to me that there are simpler, less contorted explanations of US behavior. For example, the traditional role of the center was to rob the periphery; i.e., the Imperium extracts tribute. That, I propose, is exactly what the United States is doing with respect to the rest of the world. The trade deficit is simply an accounting of how much America is stealing from its foreign suppliers.

If the British did not steal from the colonials, as Fergusson claims, I am surprised and enlightened. He admits that, excepting Hong Kong, only the white Dominions (Australia, Canada, etc) permanently benefited from being part of the British Empire. He examines British control of Egypt in some detail, and shows that, after 80 years, Egypt got nothing out of it. It seems any Imperial benefits in countries of color were temporary, and mainly resulted from white, colonial rule. The clear implication is things only worked if they were done the British way, by British people.

Why should Americans want to join the army and forever hike the Himalayan passes? Fergusson points out over and over that the English are in deep debt to the Scots and Irish who manned the Imperial army. Those volunteers were willing to join the army because of the incredibly poor conditions at home. American Blacks join the army for exactly the same reasons. Neither the Indian Raj nor wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are possible without the forcing conditions of hopeless lives at home. Those who have a better life are usually disinclined to enter "public service."

Fergusson wants to apply some pins to seats, to get Americans up and moving in his direction. He implies we should cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, thereby avoiding the alleged (by conservatives) $45 trillion deficit. Further, we should reduce benefits to US residents of working age. All of that will motivate people to be more public spirited, join up and go over there.

Who are the main beneficiaries of Empire? No doubt about it, Fergusson has fingered the main suspects: capitalists (entrepreneurs), investors and bond holders. These folks want countries to be stable, and they want to collect on their capital, loans and bonds. They don't much care how collection is enforced, somewhere else. 'Democracy is for us, and maybe our worthy collaborators; those trashy debtors get what they deserve.'

That, it seems to me, is what Fergusson is advocating: being an empire and all that implies. We should be happy to impoverish ourselves so that our sons can enjoy another "Charge of the Light Brigade."

The Imperial system always fits together very nicely. You need to have might to make right. Only you know what is right, not those poor, dumb slobs out there. Then, there are the overlords who will extract whatever they want from a supine population. They need the security might provides. For unknown reasons, Conquistadores have to have collaborators, Quislings, to intermediate. So, the Imperium forms a chain of being, sucking life out of the lowest dregs of the boonies, harvesting and transporting it to the center, where the refined few live on delights unknown to those far away.

Thus, a sneeze in Washington becomes a revolution in Caracas.