02/19/09 Baltimore, Maryland Bill Bonner’s end-of-empire musings yesterday got me to thinking — what if the American Empire has more staying power than might seem the case right now?
It’s tempting to think that the empire as we know it can’t last beyond another generation or so — that we’re consigned to the same fate as Holland in the early 18th Century or Great Britain in the first half of the 20th, and we’re irretrievably on our way to becoming a third-rate power.
But I wonder. Folks in first-century Rome probably looked around, saw the sort of leadership they were getting from Caligula and Nero, and figured their empire couldn’t last another generation or so. In fact, Rome expanded its domain for another half-century, and hung on for another three centuries after that.
America’s days as “sole superpower” are over, to be sure, but I’m not going to plan my future on the inevitability of the United States sliding into third-rate power status in another 20 or 30 years. And one of the main reasons is the one that caught Bill’s attention — that New York Times headline that read “US Military Will Offer Path to Citizenship.”
“Skilled” immigrants who’ve been here on temporary visas for at least two years can now join up and gain citizenship in as little as six months. Turns out this was done back in Vietnam days, too.
So by itself, that’s not an especially alarming sign. But it is the proverbial nose under the tent for more far-reaching proposals to offer citizenship in exchange for military service. The notion of a “freedom legion” has been a hobby horse of the neoconservative think-tanker Max Boot for years. Some of his proposals ended up in legislation that made it to the floor of the Senate last year.
The large-scale recruitment of foreigners to fight for the U.S. military would serve two purposes, both extremely useful for the power elite. It furnishes a steady supply of soldiers for our vast overseas garrisons in the short term without having to resort to a draft. And in the medium and longer term, it furnishes a steady supply of new people to pay into Social Security and Medicare as the Boomer generation reaches its peak years collecting from those systems.
It would take weeks to run the numbers, but intuition tells me even an empire as deeply indebted as ours could keep on truckin’ quite a while longer under those circumstances.
All of this reminds me of a short essay by the left-leaning scholar Michael Lind last summer. This was before the fall of Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, et.al. Still, his description of the U.S. as “radically different place” ten years or more from now rings uncomfortably true.
Government may grow dramatically and permanently as a share of U.S. GDP… [I]n the years ahead, the federal government may bail out not only homeowners, but also many retirees whose private savings have been devastated. And state and local governments may get a federal bail-out as well. In democracies, temporary spending programs tend to become permanent, so the “normal” government share of GDP in the U.S. may rise to 35 or even 40 percent.
Another likely consequence is a shift of welfare benefits onto business. Confronted with a national debt that may exceed GDP, Congress will avoid creating expensive new social programs. Instead, politicians may use unfunded mandates or tax credits to pressure corporations into doing the job of the welfare state. For example, universal health care may come in the worst possible way, by forcing or coaxing employers to provide health care coverage for all workers… The desperate attempt to provide even more benefits through employers will burden small business more than big business.
The U.S. economy a decade from now may be dominated by a few huge universal banks and a small number of gigantic corporations, all of them “too big to fail.” In return for implicit government bail-out guarantees, these swollen private-sector Leviathans will abandon “greed is good” rhetoric for noble sentiments about corporate responsibility. The emerging system might be called “lemon corporatism.” A managerial state dominated by oligopolies and monopolies, where government encourages employer paternalism as an alternative to public welfare spending, would resemble contemporary Japan and the dystopian America of “Rollerball.”
I don’t know about you, but that sounds to me like a depressingly plausible scenario. And a huge influx of immigrants could make it all possible.
Not that it’s inevitable. I suspect one of the major fault lines of American politics during the president’s first term will be over a return to the draft. The president is on record wanting to grow the military by 92,000 people, and a rotten economy alone probably won’t be enough to generate those kind of numbers. On one side of this divide will be those who think bribing immigrants will do the trick.
But on the other side I sense that the Clinton-Bush-Cheney draft-dodging ethos is giving way to the Teddy Roosevelt-Joe Kennedy ethos in which it’s noble to send one’s kids off to fight: Is it mere coincidence that of the four major-party presidential and vice-presidential candidates last year, three had children fighting in Iraq?
That’s a pretty sorry debate when you get right down to it. But just as the banking question of the day is bailout or nationalization, and the notion of letting the banks fail is not something entertained by Serious People, pulling in the horns of Empire is still beyond the realm of “respectable” discussion. So all we can do is watch, and see how long it takes for the Decline to play out.
The Daily Reckoning is your premier source for making sense of the news Washington and Wall Street generate. Each business day, The Daily Reckoning calls on its stable of world-class writers and thinkers to show you how to get ahead.
Start your 100% FREE subscription to The Daily Reckoning today and you’ll get a free research report, “How to Survive the Fall of Social Security.” Simply enter your email address below to get your free report and join over 495,000 worldwide Daily Reckoning subscribers!
We Respect Your Privacy and We will
Never Share or Sell Your Email Address





Onestly, this piece you wrote is pure madness. Immigrants brings in money when they are put to productive work… and the army does not qualify as that, unless you plan for 3rd world war and pillaging other countrys. With a HUGE deficit and a ever-growing debt, how in the world will the Us pay for more soldiers, plus assure their future benefits, if it can not pay bills now or garantuee future welfare obligations? Really, man… come back to Earth and the real world, Us will not be saved by this stupid ideas. Work is what is needed: the plain old manufacturing of natural resources in material goods exchanged by free citizens.
Perhaps with the influx of foreigners from the south infused in our military, this may provide the training that the mexican government needs for it’s military in order to properly integrate itself within the North American Union (NAU) which is inevitable with the continued devaluation of the dollar.
Once the immigrants do their time in the military, they would become productive citizens and add to the tax paying base. Therefore, what Dave is saying is correct, they could help pay for the welfare state in the long run.
The Roman Empire disintegrated completely
about 490 AD, about 300 years after Nero and Caligula played their cute tricks. The USA Empire might (and probably will) sink much faster because (A) almost 90% of all’ labor’ in the Roman Empire consisted of slaves or serfs who had, literally, NO other survival options, and (B)the Roman Empire’s economy was based on conquest and tribute, not trade and production. Conquered territories and peoples paid tribute to the Roman Empire, like it or not. Unenslaved territories and peoples have other options and won’t necessary pay tribute (taxes) or obedience to a power who cannjot just chop their heads off or enslave them at will. The US Empire could fade fast, if push ever comes to shove.
More and more this is reminding me of the emerging markets crisis of the ’90′s – come home to roost.
Seems like we got the Argentine option (devalue the currency and fire-sale everything that’s not nailed down) or the Malaysia option (throttle currency and capital movements, double down on state-sponsored cartel industry).
Liquidate or regiment. Hard to say which is the least worst option, but pretty easy to tell which way the masses will go…
Actually , I don’t know why are you so concerned about this; France is practicing that for almost 100 years – is called ” The French Foreign Legion” , the Brits are on the ideea for almost 50 years – is called ” Green Berrets ” , and where are they right now?…
England is on the verge of collapse ( almost like their cusin Iceland) and France is so clueless, they elected a former Hungarian Count as their President, which brought them a hore as the First Lady!
Isn’t the politics the best show on Earth?!…
Paulo Dubitaticus writes: “…like it or not. Unenslaved territories and peoples have other options and won’t necessary pay tribute (taxes) or obedience to a power…”
Change unenslaved territories to trading partners and change tribute to buy treasuries and you’ll have it.