'Empire' losing evil association

On June 8, 1982, President Ronald Reagan memorably referred to the Soviet Union as "the evil empire." His choice of "empire" -- as opposed to words such as nation or state -- revealed more than just a yen for alliteration.

Reagan and his speechwriters knew that the word "empire" carried all sorts of negative associations and would cause little shivers of apprehension in some listeners. Empire meant imperialism, domination, oppression. Empire meant big and bad.

Similarly, when George Lucas needed a name for the nefarious cabal that opposed those noble Jedi warriors, he, too, went with "empire." And why not? "The word 'empire,' " noted Neal Conan on National Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation" recently, "is redolent of slavery, war and arrogance." Lately, though, the word and what it represents -- a stupendously powerful nation marching across borders - - seems to be undergoing a makeover. The phrase "American Empire," which once would have caused hives to break out on the skin of freedom-loving people, now evokes a shrug of resignation: We're the most powerful nation in the history of the world, this line of thinking goes, so why not revel in it. Empire? You bet.

Some observers, however, still bristle at the word's dark historical connotations.

"There's been a huge shift" in attitudes toward empire," says Bruce Robbins, a Columbia University professor of English and comparative literature, who is critical of the shift. "Until very recently, there was no way you could use the word 'empire' in any but a critical sense. It's been a very, very long American tradition to set ourselves apart from the European notion of empire. The American public wouldn't support imperialism.

"But Americans have lost their shame about it," adds Robbins, whose books include "Feeling Global: Internationalism in Distress" (1999).

The anxiety attending the idea of empire, American or otherwise, is demonstrated by an increasing number of books, articles and conferences that explore its ramifications. Robbins recently participated in a forum at the University of Florida called "American Empire." Among the new books that evaluate empires past and present are "Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power," by Niall Ferguson and "American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy," by Andrew Bacevich. The word "empire" also adorns numerous articles in specialized foreign policy journals and bulletins from think tanks.

And no wonder: Fresh from a swift and decisive victory in Iraq, American leaders reportedly are considering going after other states such as Iran and Syria, which Secretary of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has branded a "rogue nation."

What some regard as America's cultural imperialism -- which catapulted American products such as fashions, TV shows, movies and fast-food chains around the globe -- has now been joined by real imperialism, says Walter La Feber, a professor of American foreign relations at Cornell University and author of "Michael Jordan and the New Global Capitalism" (1999).

"The United States has had an economic empire for a long time," he says. "What's different now is the military."

Another reason that empire doesn't sound quite so heinous to American ears, says Michael Adas, is the nation's response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "It changed everything. The civilian population of America suddenly saw itself at risk," says Adas, history professor at Rutgers University, whose books include "High Imperialism and the New History" (1993). The idea of using American might to restore order to the world -- to be an empire -- seemed like a pretty good idea. "It was, 'Yes, we're willing to give up domestic rights; yes, we must use force overseas. Yes, we must build an empire -- an empire of pre-emptive military strikes.' "

Yet some people still wince at the word "empire," La Feber says. "Americans don't like the word 'empire.' We like the word 'democracy.' "

The British-born Ferguson concurs: "Americans have it drummed into them from kindergarten that their political lexicon doesn't include the 'E' word," he wrote in a recent article. "The U.S. was forged in a revolt against British colonialism."

The term, however, is gradually becoming acceptable again, La Feber says. "We're working our way through that transition now."

Home to 5 percent of the world's population, the nation is responsible for 43 percent of its economic production. The American economy equals the combined total of the next three largest economies, those of Japan, Germany and Britain. The United States spends more on defense than all other nations of the world combined.

That kind of towering strength can make a nation bold in foreign affairs -- and can make other nations apprehensive. Past empires have been known for their bombastic excesses: The capricious cruelty of the Roman emperors; the swaggering racism that British bureaucrats brought to their jobs in India and Africa; the deadly purges in the Soviet Union. The popular image of an empire is a state run by an arrogant leader out of touch with his people, striking out to conquer weaker people simply because she or he can, leaving a huge boot print on the world.

Some TV viewers cringed when a young U.S. Marine scaled a large statue of Saddam Hussein in the newly fallen Baghdad and draped an American flag over the deposed leader's stone face, though the Marine quickly took down the American Stars and Stripes. Almost immediately, an Iraqi flag went up, was removed, and then the statue was pulled down.

Other empire-worthy moments likely to come include images of Americans running Iraqi oil fields and an American running Iraq. Jay Garner, the retired U.S. general recently named to run postwar post- war Iraq, often is referred to as the country's "viceroy," especially in the British press. Viceroys governed colonies of the British Empire, so you're unlikely to hear American leaders calling him that. Officially, Garner is the director of the Defense Department's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance.

Empires and imperialism haven't always gotten such bad press, says Jesse Sheidlower, North American editor of the Oxford English Dictionary.

"The disparaging connotations of 'imperialism' is directly from communist writing. Imperialism was used originally in positive senses," he says.

Even in America, the word "empire" wasn't always shunned, adds La Feber. Early American leaders such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson employed it frequently and positively. "In the 1770s to the 1840s, the phrase 'American Empire' was very popular. It started to change in the 1840s and was used less and less. The phrase became 'American nation.' " By the early 20th century, La Feber says, the word empire "had a bad connotation. We didn't like the empires at the time: Russian, German, even the British." Yet some caution that "empire" is too much a catch-all term. "'American empire' means nothing to my mind," says etymologist Anatoly Liberman, a professor of German (copy desk: pls. Don't change to "german professor," he requests) at the University of Minnesota. "I think when people speak about an American empire they mean something like this -- a country that wants to broaden its influence and dominate others, though the U.S. never has had colonies as England and Rome and even Russia did.

"If a certain country exercises an enormous influence, economic and cultural, it is not an empire. An empire is a political entity."

Nor would everyone concur that past empires are uniformly wicked. In his new book, Ferguson argues that the British Empire was a positive experience for the world, spreading ideas about the values of liberty and education around the globe. That is why Ferguson, in numerous recent articles and interviews, expresses puzzlement that Americans are gun-shy about using the word, creating what he calls "the strange, self-denying character of the new empire."

As Ferguson wrote recently in the London Sunday Times, "Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of the Pax Americana -- the empire that dare not speak its name . . . Even hardnosed conservatives share this allergy to empire."

Though the Bush administration avoids "the E word," certain influential players such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and key adviser Richard Perle have made clear their advocacy of intervention abroad.

One needs only to read the statement of principles of the Project for a New American Century, an influential "neoconservative" group, to see the modern face of imperialist philosophy.

"We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles," the group asserted in a 1997 document signed by Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

Empires, however, needn't always involve armies and arms, says James Kurth, a political science professor at Swarthmore University.

"If there is now an American empire, it is best defined by the 'soft power' of information networks and popular culture rather than by the hard power of economic exploitation and military force," James Kurth writes in the current issue of "The National Interest."

The country might not fit the image of the empires of old, Kurth believes, but that may not matter.

"It is an empire representative of the information age rather than the industrial age. Whatever they may think about their empire, however, Americans should not be surprised if Europeans and almost all other peoples around the world persist in perceiving the new American empire to be similar enough for their purposes to the earlier empires of their own historical experience," he writes. "We can tell them they're wrong, but it won't do us any good."

Robbins, for one, hopes that the old trepidation toward empire returns.

"I like to think it hasn't been lost permanently," he says. "I have to hope that the tradition of not supporting empire, of seeing ourselves not as empire builders, goes very deep in this country and there will be resistance (to an American empire)."

Adas agrees. "It sometimes takes a republic a long time to realize what it's giving away," he says.

"With all this talk of (invading) Syria, people will begin to realize, 'This is not where we want to go -- this endless war."

Copyright C 2003 Deseret News Publishing Co.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.