Should we have kept the American Empire?, Max Tabarrok asks:
Note that the question of whether the US should have relinquished its maximum territorial extent is different than the one facing America in 1865 or the question of expanding American borders today. There, you have to consider the substantial costs of actually conquering territory in war. Holding on to land already conquered is less costly than conquering anew.
[…]
The first thing to notice when considering this question is that America did not actually give up all of its imperial conquests. Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, a smattering of pacific islands, Alaska, and arguably even much of the American Southwest are spoils of conquest or purchase.
No one seriously considers giving up any of the pieces of our imperial history that we kept. The Hawaiian independence movement is perhaps the most popular, but that sets a low upper bound. This acceptance of the pieces of empire we retained suggests that if we had kept more of our 1918 peak territory, people would accept those additional pieces just as easily today.
Reluctance to give up what we kept isn’t just status quo bias. The economic performance of the states and territories still within the US compared to the nations we once controlled but are independent today is evidence that American annexation has large positive effects.
[…]
Integration under the same national umbrella seems like about the only way to sustain and spread free trade and immigration. The US can’t even manage it with Canada. The principal domestic supporters of Philippine independence, for example, were American farmers who didn’t want to face competition from tariff-free Filipino sugar, and nativists who didn’t want immigration from “alien races.”
A final general argument is, perhaps surprisingly, political legitimacy. The nations that America was closest to annexing are not only economic underperformers, they also tend to be undemocratic and authoritarian. Recently, Panama and the Dominican Republic are probably exceptions here with relatively successful and stable governance.
“relatively” is questionable. It is a good reason to be for Puerto Rican independence.
Ah, «the American Empire». And Max Tabarrok who may or may not want to keep it.
Vatican is not Rome, nor was Rome. It does not serve interests of Rome or (Northern) Italy, but its own, while the other way is quite possible. It seems a one-sided street. And when Vatican had a real empire associated with it, they were in an overt conflict (Ghibelline vs Guelph).
Likewise, neither Federal Council of Churches, nor Harvard nor Council on Foreign Relations is Washington or USA.
For how long this «American Empire» thing was but a decoy on one side and cope on the other? Almost as long as it existed or exactly as long?
Looking on from another continent, I find Tabarrok’s idea that parasitic Hawaii be shed from the American Empire entirely reasonable. Like the ISS boondoggle its only value is as a tourist destination.