I have posited that America is maintaining an empire – a claim that is refuted by Doughboy who prefers the term “peacekeeping.”  By using the word empire, instead of a more misleading term, I have been labeled a “guy who care[s] about your pocketbooks and cozying up to the anti war left”; that I am a cult member of Ron Paul’s; that I am a xenophobe who lacks understanding of the “global nature of the present times”; that I maintain a “leftwing site” that “never [has] any praise for our military, our Republican leaders, America etc. And there’s never any criticism twrd Obama, Pelosi, etc, only the military, Bush and peacekeeping.”

As to the last several specious arguments: that this website “never [has] any praise for our military,” see here, here, here for instances where I, personally, have praised the military during the last year. These do not reflect Bill’s constant praise for our soldiers. As for praising our Republican leaders, I would direct Doughboy’s attention here, here, here, here, here, here, and here where I have praised Republicans. Just recently I wrote this praising the very idea of America and I would note that virtually everything I write is suffused with an abiding love and respect for our constitutional way of life. So, as for Doughboy’s criticisms of the website, I think we can safely view them as hyperbole and emotional reaction unrelated to actual facts. I admit that I do criticize Republicans and even conservatives. As I have written before, the more vigorous the debate on the issues, the better. A strong debate tends to cull weaker ideas that cannot be justified. In that sense, debate among conservatives is healthy. When conservatives cease debate about their plank, that is a sign of unhealthy group-think that will inevitably lead to trouble.

As for the primary question, whether America is an empire, I point to our continual military presence in far-flung provinces as evidence of empire. Doughboy responds that these are for the purpose of peacekeeping, although one wonders if Germany still remains at risk of descending into chaos but for the presence of our soldiers there. Wouldn’t America be safer if its allies maintained strong militaries instead of abdicating their responsibility to defend themselves to the United States? Think of it this way. If you were a criminal looking for victims and you saw a huge, tough guy walking around with a bunch of four-year-olds in his gang, you would instantly recognize that in order to take control of the gang, you would simply have to take out the huge, tough guy – the rest would fall into your orbit from a lack of any real options. However, if you approached a gang where the huge, tough guy were accompanied by a fair number of sizable companions, you may find yourself less likely to consider them as a potential target. I invite Doughboy to consider which model the situation in Europe is more like. The fact is, our presence there excuses them from providing for themselves. Their refusal to accept responsibility for themselves, in turn, places the United States at greater risk, not lesser. A strong allied Europe would be a boon to the United States, but that will never happen as long we maintain our protective umbrella over our European provinces.

Oh, I’m sure referencing “our European provinces” is likely to draw fire, but if one nation cannot defend itself and relies on another, the stark reality is that the nation that holds the strings of life or death over the other actually holds the nation. It has been rendered a dependent state and cannot in any meaningful way be regarded as sovereign as long as such a condition persists. America was once in that position; it was then a colony of Great Britain, a holding of the crown. I will readily admit that America is bad at maintaining an empire. For instance, it is customary to force the colony to pull its own weight by remitting taxes or tribute to the emperor. Instead, we foot the bill for the entire world’s security.

Doughboy maintains that we are safer because we have troops scattered all over the world. He maintains that we benefit economically from this arrangement and that the world is more secure as a result. I have asked him to make his case. I am persuadable, I will listen to cogent argument. I will not listen to a harangue about how I have turned the website into a CNN.com chatroom by making myself into a leftist, who harbors a secret love for Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Set me straight, Doughboy. I welcome the opportunity to engage in reasoned debate.

Not surprisingly to the sentient, even the hard-left media on the Continent has continued their anti-Americanism despite having their Messiah-of-choice in office. European disdain is, of course, ignorant and hypocritical. And you need not be a historian to understand that — even though most “post modern historians” still do not. The “restoring our place in the world” line, used by Bush haters of the left, is such a cliche that it may be answered with three simple facts:

1. Like the Yankees, Lakers, Donald Trump and other power groups, we Americans will always be “hated.” Despite freeing Europeans from totalitarianism twice, since the end of the Spanish-American War, this has sadly been the case. It’s no more or less under Bush than Obama or vice versa. When my friends and family went to Europe under a Johnson or a Reagan or a Clinton presidency, we were despised by the urban Euro (like Americans, there are two types of Euros, of course) just as much as in 1967 as 1987 or 2007. No one likes admitting a nation across the pond has to act as their daddy and fight their wars, free millions from tyranny and so on.

2. We’re actually NOT hated in western Euro nations like Italy, Portugal, Belgium and some of the Scandinavian nations either — so it’s basically Britain, France, Holland and Germany that worries people, I suppose.

3. We’re actually NOT hated in the vast majority of the world. We’re “hated” by a cadre of apathetic and brainwashed western Euros, who, proving many actually do understand world events deep down, have elected more conservative leaders than we have in the past few years. They’re also far less “tolerant” of Muslims and “minorities” than we are — with many being pure, uneducated racists, despite what Gwyneth Paltrow mused yesterday.

To clarify, we’re hated in the Muslim world. Good. They hate freedom of speech, press, religion, women’s rights, open markets and classical liberal values.

But we Americans are liked, admired, or even loved in:

Israel: our only ally and the only liberal democracy in a region of half a billion religious fanatics who practice terrorism.

Most of South America, especially Colombia, though Nancy Pelosi and the congressional Democrats have ruined that — due to their political need to placate unions for votes here at the expense of Colombian safety there — have ruined much of that recently.

Japan and most of the far east, including much of China, and of course, non Muslim Southeast Asia, have no issue with us.

Australia and Oceania are pro-America.

Africa (Even CNN confessed earlier this year that more than ten million lives via the Bush Administration’s AIDS work there)

Eastern Europe (and most nations that have people who have suffered or are suffering love America. Recall how well-received Bush was in eastern Europe and Africa.)

Related:

Victor Davis Hanson schools Obama on how to handle thugs and tin-pot dictators.