If we had annexed Cuba and Hispaniola, it wouldn't feel like an "empire". They are much closer to the continental US than Alaska or Hawaii, closer than Puerto Rico is. It would just feel like, well naturally we also control some of the nearby islands.
To me I wonder whether we could do a better job of integrating Puerto Rico. Yeah, it's richer than the surrounding islands, but it's far poorer than the US states. I feel like as long as most people there don't speak English, it's going to be hard for them to get the full benefit of being US citizens. And if we really find a formula for making Puerto Rico as well off as Miami, then yeah, I will wish that in retrospect we had done the same for Cuba and Hispaniola.
I grew up in Puerto Rico in the 60s and 70s. A large proportion of the population speaks at least some English, especially in the urban areas. I don't think we've given them a fair shake over the years, to be honest. How different things could have been.
Yeah, I'm not an expert, the language thing is just my guess. I feel like it would be a great investment, both morally and financially, for the US to push harder on bringing Puerto Rico up to the condition of the core states.
ChatGPT estimates 20% of the people there speak English, and obviously speaking English is going to be really good for your employment prospects as a US citizen, so it seems like one simple thing we could try to do is ensure that the education system there teaches everyone English. And in terms of "vibes" that feels like the sort of help-the-poor program that could get support from the right wing as well.
Empire corrupts the republic, as it did in Rome. If the choice is between Empire and Republic, choose the latter, for what profit to conquer the world, when you have lost your soul.
I like the quote, but I think that America demonstrated its ability to expand without corrupting itself too deeply. We did take lots of land in the Span-Am war.
In another way, there's a kind of King Solomon style ruling where exactly because America wanted to give up its empire, it is qualified to keep it.
all of these possessions are poorer then the USA. They would likely take a lot of net tax dollars from the federal government.
To the extent they had political representation it would almost certainly be on the left. There is a reason the left is always pushing for PR statehood.
If you think adding large numbers of hard left leaning welfare states to America would have a bad effect on America that’s a strong reason to oppose.
I think it would be very hard to keep large foreign polities without representation, and grow only harder the more of them there are. It’s one thing that some random tiny island somewhere with not many people is a “territory”. It’s another if it’s a whole empire.
Even if you didn’t have representation, I have to think that you would get mass migration from these places to the mainland. Puerto Ricans have had profound effects where they have migrated to in America (they have the highest crime rate and the most leftist voting of Hispanic immigrants).
This all comes down to “will we make them more like us or will they make us more like them.” And which is more important.
I’m generally of the opinion that high functioning first world polities are super important and fragile. I don’t really think what happens in the third world matters much compared to that.
I support any country that wants to (not just former colonies) joining the United States as a protectorate with American law, free trade, and defense from our military, but without free movement or political representation. I expect the result would be massive new investment, better public safety and rising GDP. If that goes well and both sides enjoy peaceful and harmonious co-operation, we could talk about free movement and citizenship in a generation or so.
"... in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never met, never had no problem with, get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Oh, send in the Marines to secure the area" cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number got called, cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass.
And he comes back to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile, he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And, of course, the oil companies used the skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them, but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon.
And they're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, of course, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and fuckin' play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's got to walk to the fuckin' job interviews, which sucks cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin', cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat, the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State.
So what did I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. I figure fuck it, while I'm at it why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president.
I think the big historical fact that this analysis overlooks is the extent to which America's lack of overt empire helped it in the ideological battle of the Cold War. In isolation, the author makes an interesting case from a sort of EA-inflected view, but how badly would empire have hurt America's standing in the international arena vis-a-vis the Soviet Union? Not to mention that those colonies/protectorates would have been prime candidates for Communist agitation, which in turn would likely have required harsh crackdowns. At that point, does the US criticism of e.g. Hungary 1956 carry any weight?
Tbf, I am suggesting a lot of second order effects, which is always a dangerous game. But it does seem too confident to assert relatively friendly relations in the interwar years, then assume that would continue to be the case as anti-colonial movements swept the globe post-WWII.
This is great (might be unpopular but great)! It makes me think about how beneficial stuff like a schengen would be between the US and commonwealth countries or between the US and our former colonies (Cuba, Philippines, Haiti). Both back then and now.
Not that this would be politically possible… but we missed out on the chance for some real mutually beneficial migration and blending of values.
all of these possessions are poorer then the USA. They would likely take a lot of net tax dollars from the federal government.
To the extent they had political representation it would almost certainly be on the left. There is a reason the left is always pushing for PR statehood.
If you think adding large numbers of hard left leaning welfare states to America would have a bad effect on America that’s a strong reason to oppose.
I think it would be very hard to keep large foreign polities without representation, and grow only harder the more of them there are. It’s one thing that some random tiny island somewhere with not many people is a “territory”. It’s another if it’s a whole empire.
Even if you didn’t have representation, I have to think that you would get mass migration from these places to the mainland. Puerto Ricans have had profound effects where they have migrated to in America (they have the highest crime rate and the most leftist voting of Hispanic immigrants).
This all comes down to “will we make them more like us or will they make us more like them.” And which is more important.
I’m generally of the opinion that high functioning first world polities are super important and fragile. I don’t really think what happens in the third world matters much compared to that.
Would the centre be better off had it kept the imperial periphery? That is less clear. Although a universalist ethics with low temporal discounting probably favours the case you make, the decision to keep a diverse and disperse periphery is made by those who might be better off to focus on a compact and secure mainland. There are surely negative second-order effects to the imperial regime if a citizenry without the universalist frame of mind are required to live within such universal (globalist?) logic.
If we had annexed Cuba and Hispaniola, it wouldn't feel like an "empire". They are much closer to the continental US than Alaska or Hawaii, closer than Puerto Rico is. It would just feel like, well naturally we also control some of the nearby islands.
To me I wonder whether we could do a better job of integrating Puerto Rico. Yeah, it's richer than the surrounding islands, but it's far poorer than the US states. I feel like as long as most people there don't speak English, it's going to be hard for them to get the full benefit of being US citizens. And if we really find a formula for making Puerto Rico as well off as Miami, then yeah, I will wish that in retrospect we had done the same for Cuba and Hispaniola.
I grew up in Puerto Rico in the 60s and 70s. A large proportion of the population speaks at least some English, especially in the urban areas. I don't think we've given them a fair shake over the years, to be honest. How different things could have been.
Yeah, I'm not an expert, the language thing is just my guess. I feel like it would be a great investment, both morally and financially, for the US to push harder on bringing Puerto Rico up to the condition of the core states.
ChatGPT estimates 20% of the people there speak English, and obviously speaking English is going to be really good for your employment prospects as a US citizen, so it seems like one simple thing we could try to do is ensure that the education system there teaches everyone English. And in terms of "vibes" that feels like the sort of help-the-poor program that could get support from the right wing as well.
Empire corrupts the republic, as it did in Rome. If the choice is between Empire and Republic, choose the latter, for what profit to conquer the world, when you have lost your soul.
I like the quote, but I think that America demonstrated its ability to expand without corrupting itself too deeply. We did take lots of land in the Span-Am war.
In another way, there's a kind of King Solomon style ruling where exactly because America wanted to give up its empire, it is qualified to keep it.
I do think one sign of “American exceptionalism” is their ability or willingness to simply drop their conquests like so many hot potatoes.
all of these possessions are poorer then the USA. They would likely take a lot of net tax dollars from the federal government.
To the extent they had political representation it would almost certainly be on the left. There is a reason the left is always pushing for PR statehood.
If you think adding large numbers of hard left leaning welfare states to America would have a bad effect on America that’s a strong reason to oppose.
I think it would be very hard to keep large foreign polities without representation, and grow only harder the more of them there are. It’s one thing that some random tiny island somewhere with not many people is a “territory”. It’s another if it’s a whole empire.
Even if you didn’t have representation, I have to think that you would get mass migration from these places to the mainland. Puerto Ricans have had profound effects where they have migrated to in America (they have the highest crime rate and the most leftist voting of Hispanic immigrants).
This all comes down to “will we make them more like us or will they make us more like them.” And which is more important.
I’m generally of the opinion that high functioning first world polities are super important and fragile. I don’t really think what happens in the third world matters much compared to that.
I support any country that wants to (not just former colonies) joining the United States as a protectorate with American law, free trade, and defense from our military, but without free movement or political representation. I expect the result would be massive new investment, better public safety and rising GDP. If that goes well and both sides enjoy peaceful and harmonious co-operation, we could talk about free movement and citizenship in a generation or so.
From GoodWill Hunting
"... in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never met, never had no problem with, get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Oh, send in the Marines to secure the area" cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number got called, cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass.
And he comes back to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile, he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And, of course, the oil companies used the skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them, but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon.
And they're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, of course, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and fuckin' play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's got to walk to the fuckin' job interviews, which sucks cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin', cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat, the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State.
So what did I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. I figure fuck it, while I'm at it why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president.
I think the big historical fact that this analysis overlooks is the extent to which America's lack of overt empire helped it in the ideological battle of the Cold War. In isolation, the author makes an interesting case from a sort of EA-inflected view, but how badly would empire have hurt America's standing in the international arena vis-a-vis the Soviet Union? Not to mention that those colonies/protectorates would have been prime candidates for Communist agitation, which in turn would likely have required harsh crackdowns. At that point, does the US criticism of e.g. Hungary 1956 carry any weight?
Tbf, I am suggesting a lot of second order effects, which is always a dangerous game. But it does seem too confident to assert relatively friendly relations in the interwar years, then assume that would continue to be the case as anti-colonial movements swept the globe post-WWII.
This is great (might be unpopular but great)! It makes me think about how beneficial stuff like a schengen would be between the US and commonwealth countries or between the US and our former colonies (Cuba, Philippines, Haiti). Both back then and now.
Not that this would be politically possible… but we missed out on the chance for some real mutually beneficial migration and blending of values.
Heh. Now do the British Empire.
all of these possessions are poorer then the USA. They would likely take a lot of net tax dollars from the federal government.
To the extent they had political representation it would almost certainly be on the left. There is a reason the left is always pushing for PR statehood.
If you think adding large numbers of hard left leaning welfare states to America would have a bad effect on America that’s a strong reason to oppose.
I think it would be very hard to keep large foreign polities without representation, and grow only harder the more of them there are. It’s one thing that some random tiny island somewhere with not many people is a “territory”. It’s another if it’s a whole empire.
Even if you didn’t have representation, I have to think that you would get mass migration from these places to the mainland. Puerto Ricans have had profound effects where they have migrated to in America (they have the highest crime rate and the most leftist voting of Hispanic immigrants).
This all comes down to “will we make them more like us or will they make us more like them.” And which is more important.
I’m generally of the opinion that high functioning first world polities are super important and fragile. I don’t really think what happens in the third world matters much compared to that.
Would the centre be better off had it kept the imperial periphery? That is less clear. Although a universalist ethics with low temporal discounting probably favours the case you make, the decision to keep a diverse and disperse periphery is made by those who might be better off to focus on a compact and secure mainland. There are surely negative second-order effects to the imperial regime if a citizenry without the universalist frame of mind are required to live within such universal (globalist?) logic.