Question: What are the forces that have shaped the United States most?
Niall Ferguson: Well the United States is a fantastic idea with extraordinary resources. It’s a wonderful combination of the right institutions, the right culture, the right place, the right time.
And it’s really not surprising that the United States has been so astonishingly successful as an economy, as a society, and as an empire. We know it’s not surprising because it was predicated before 1776 by many commentators, including disinterested commentators like Adam Smith who understood just what the potential was of this place.
But we may be living through the end of something. Not necessarily the end of the United States. On the contrary. I think the United States has a huge future ahead of it. But perhaps the end of the American empire.
In a book called “Colossus”, I provocatively gave the subtitle “The Rise and Fall of the American Empire.” I made the argument that the United States is a very odd thing. It’s an empire in denial. It behaves like an empire. It does all the classic things that empires do, like invading Afghanistan and Mesopotamia, and it wields tremendous military power. It exports its culture to foreign peoples. It does the full range of imperial things, except for one.
It doesn’t celebrate its own existence. It denies it. It insists that it’s not engaged in an empire.
And the only people who say that it is are actually a relatively small marginal group of people on the left.
So the question I asked was: Was the American empire a bad thing? And my conclusion was no. On balance it was better than all the available alternatives. It was certainly better than the other empires on offer in the mid 20th century.
But the second question was, well how long can it last in its present form? And my suggestion was not very long, because as a force for wielding power abroad, it’s constrained by three deficits. The three deficits are as follows.
The first is a financial deficit. This is an empire that relies increasingly on foreign capital to keep its economy going.
It is a manpower deficit. It cannot deploy at any time more than a quarter of a million troops overseas which is a laughably small number considering how many able-bodied American men there are.
And it has an attention deficit. And indeed it’s the first empire to have attention deficit disorder because almost every imperial undertaking has to be over successfully within four years or it gets abandoned. And that’s not a function of some kind of cultural attention span problem. It’s a function of the American electoral system. Results have to be delivered very quickly. And no empire can deliver the transformation of Mesopotamia in a four year timeframe. I mean nobody could have done that. It would take you at least 40 years to turn Iraq into something resembling a stable society, and nobody at any point, to my knowledge, has anticipated a 40 year timeframe.
So we have a paradox. The American empire is economically stronger than any empire ever. In terms of its military lead over the competition, it’s out of sight. It was never a time when Britain was so far ahead of its competition.
But despite these enormous advantages, it’s very dysfunctional as an empire. It really can’t direct sufficient financial resources through its imperial undertakings. It never has enough men where they’re needed. And above all else, its electorate loses interest in hot, poorer countries almost as soon as they’ve been occupied. And these are the reasons why I think that the American empire may be on the way down.
There’s a fourth deficit which I hadn’t fully appreciated when I wrote the book, but I’m happy to add it now; and that is the legitimacy deficit. Empires need, above all else, collaborators. You can’t run an empire on force alone. You need local indigenous support for it to be viable. And one of the most interesting failures of this most recent American administration [i.e. the George W. Bush administration] has been its failure to preserve the legitimacy of American power, which has collapsed to the extent the United States is more unpopular around the world than it has ever been, certainly since records began. And that makes it even harder to be a successful empire. If everybody hates you, it’s not going to last.
Recorded on: Oct 15, 2007
Discuss
JW Kopp on January 8, 2008, 5:32 AM
I agree with most of what Professor Ferguson has stated. An empire that collapses does it from within. We have forgotten what it is to work together and many vocal factions of our society have yelled the most, causing deep rifts among us.
Pandios Manias on January 8, 2008, 5:42 AM
I agree with the notion that America as an "empire" is coming to an end. In this next new century I believe that we will be seeing Asia take the forefront in things.
JW Kopp on January 8, 2008, 10:32 AM
I agree with most of what Professor Ferguson has stated. An empire that collapses does it from within. We have forgotten what it is to work together and many vocal factions of our society have yelled the most, causing deep rifts among us.
Pandios Manias on January 8, 2008, 10:42 AM
I agree with the notion that America as an “empire” is coming to an end. In this next new century I believe that we will be seeing Asia take the forefront in things.
Tyler Pewarski on January 10, 2008, 7:48 PM
Asia has been overrated and people are neglecting its own internal problems such as ineffective forms of government that are really limiting its developement. Asia as a whole may not be a significant factor but perhaps smaller countries such as Japan and South Korea may come to the forefront of innovation.
And in response to this idea, i think he nailed it but America can turn itself around and i feel it will once other nations do begin to make significant threats to its power. Americans myself included hate being second to anyone.
Tyler Pewarski on January 11, 2008, 12:48 AM
Asia has been overrated and people are neglecting its own internal problems such as ineffective forms of government that are really limiting its developement. Asia as a whole may not be a significant factor but perhaps smaller countries such as Japan and South Korea may come to the forefront of innovation.
And in response to this idea, i think he nailed it but America can turn itself around and i feel it will once other nations do begin to make significant threats to its power. Americans myself included hate being second to anyone.
Dr Doom on January 16, 2008, 1:08 PM
Asia is a problem now that natural resources are now fought over, and that superpowers are now emerging from once noted "third-world countries" America is not what is used to be. If you doubt this, look at our national debt, and the actual power of the U.S. dollar. America lives on credit of other nations.
Dr Doom on January 16, 2008, 6:08 PM
Asia is a problem now that natural resources are now fought over, and that superpowers are now emerging from once noted “third-world countries” America is not what is used to be. If you doubt this, look at our national debt, and the actual power of the U.S. dollar. America lives on credit of other nations.
Pedro Rodriguez on January 26, 2008, 12:28 PM
First of all you are not the only America. You are part of North America sharing it with Mexico and Canada. There is also something called Central America and also a South America, if you dont remembered it. You guys are northamericans as i am part of southamericans people. Maybe one of the things that can answer the question "who are we?" is that bad memory, not only in geographic matters but also in politics and social issues.
Pedro Rodriguez on January 26, 2008, 5:28 PM
First of all you are not the only America. You are part of North America sharing it with Mexico and Canada. There is also something called Central America and also a South America, if you dont remembered it. You guys are northamericans as i am part of southamericans people. Maybe one of the things that can answer the question “who are we?” is that bad memory, not only in geographic matters but also in politics and social issues.
Helena Handbasket on February 1, 2008, 10:31 AM
Exactly so geriatric1943.
"An empire that collapses does it from within"
Helena Handbasket on February 1, 2008, 3:31 PM
Exactly so geriatric1943.
“An empire that collapses does it from within”
Zhimmy Kanata on February 12, 2008, 8:42 AM
I think your right and that is obviously a very informed opinion.
I agree China and India are completely overrated and in absolutely no position to become a dominant power within the next 25 years.
However, do I think that America is an empire in decline?…well I am not so sure…
I often think, "what will happen when the sleeping giant 'truly' awakens?" Right now I think it has simply rolled over, shook off an deep sleep and put its feet on the floor. Its hardly stood up!
Zhimmy Kanata on February 12, 2008, 1:42 PM
I think your right and that is obviously a very informed opinion.
I agree China and India are completely overrated and in absolutely no position to become a dominant power within the next 25 years.
However, do I think that America is an empire in decline?…well I am not so sure…
I often think, “what will happen when the sleeping giant ‘truly’ awakens?” Right now I think it has simply rolled over, shook off an deep sleep and put its feet on the floor. Its hardly stood up!
Andy Liu on February 22, 2008, 7:40 AM
You guys know nothing about China!
The great wall, most populated, communist,
nationalist, made in China and human rights record are the thing you have in mind about China. What else do you know about China?
Andy Liu on February 22, 2008, 12:40 PM
You guys know nothing about China!
The great wall, most populated, communist,
nationalist, made in China and human rights record are the thing you have in mind about China. What else do you know about China?
Zhimmy Kanata on March 3, 2008, 8:50 AM
I don't pretend to be an expert on China outside of what I have seen in a travel show. Albeit I have been to Hong Kong pre take over. No doubt it is a large and diverse place.
However, you can't escape the simple facts that you point out. They are universal truths and exactly what we are talking about. They are the reasons China will never become a economic superpower of the world like the USA or more accurately North America.
Zhimmy Kanata on March 3, 2008, 1:50 PM
I don’t pretend to be an expert on China outside of what I have seen in a travel show. Albeit I have been to Hong Kong pre take over. No doubt it is a large and diverse place.
However, you can’t escape the simple facts that you point out. They are universal truths and exactly what we are talking about. They are the reasons China will never become a economic superpower of the world like the USA or more accurately North America.
Elias Gonzalez on March 15, 2008, 8:59 PM
I agree. Mr. Ferguson has hinted at a crucial detriment that threatens to dissolve the effectiveness of this nation as a sovereign entity: disunity. Mr. Ferguson mentions legitimacy as a deficit, and legitimacy is contingent upon the cohesion of the populace. His reference to the U.S. as having ADD is an enlightened (I think) interpretation of the rise of bipartisan political fanaticism that has dominated the political panorama in recent times. George Washington warned against party politics and it is now that his words prove clairvoyant. For instance, since now presidential candidates are dependent on political interest groups (the new right is an impeccable example), and since these groups are uncompromising in their political affiliations, these groups sway the political countenance, the issues becomes irrelevant, ideological triteness. I feel Mr. Ferguson has described the symptoms of this bipartisan fanaticism disease and has appraised its long-standing implications.
Elias Gonzalez on March 16, 2008, 12:59 AM
I agree. Mr. Ferguson has hinted at a crucial detriment that threatens to dissolve the effectiveness of this nation as a sovereign entity: disunity. Mr. Ferguson mentions legitimacy as a deficit, and legitimacy is contingent upon the cohesion of the populace. His reference to the U.S. as having ADD is an enlightened (I think) interpretation of the rise of bipartisan political fanaticism that has dominated the political panorama in recent times. George Washington warned against party politics and it is now that his words prove clairvoyant. For instance, since now presidential candidates are dependent on political interest groups (the new right is an impeccable example), and since these groups are uncompromising in their political affiliations, these groups sway the political countenance, the issues becomes irrelevant, ideological triteness. I feel Mr. Ferguson has described the symptoms of this bipartisan fanaticism disease and has appraised its long-standing implications.
Madeleine Burnside on May 15, 2009, 3:57 PM
I think one of the problems is that Americans have historically prided themselves on being a nation of amateurs.
Originally it really was a nation of misfits. The “Gentlemen” who came with John Smith to the Virginia Colony had to learn to do jobs they were not trained to do or perish. While many perished, these and other European rejects/dissidents (including religious dissenters, younger sons, unhappy spouses, refugees, debtors, and even gays and lesbians) soon learned new skills. American art/craft forms like the Kentucky rifle, the quilt, and Jazz came out of a DYI society on which we have continued to build. New kinds of jobs—cowboys, mountain men, school marms—ventured forth alongside people whose behavior had been criminalized elsewhere. In those earliest years, prostitutes found rich husbands, thieves became judges, apprentices became slaveholders. Anyone of European descent could be anything if they survived long enough.
Today, this is reflected in the idea that political “outsiders” can better serve the country than those who have made a career of doing so. This would be laughable in other long-standing democracies. But attention deficit was built in from the beginning.
America has made its own greatness out of this, calling upon innovation where none might be expected, hailing new things but often unable to sustain them.
I wonder what we will do next?
shawn disney on July 15, 2009, 5:58 PM
Excellent article. But I don’t agree that it was such a good thing, merely because no empire at all at present can possibly be a good thing; that is an impossibility of design in the “global” world. Empire implies suppressing, supplanting, conquering, and exploiting other “Nations”, plus ragtag, “unorganzied” groups. Representative democracy, legal status for non-empire citizens, etc. cannot be part of an empire; when they are it is already falling apart, as with Britain after the War. But that is a good thing! We are technologically ready for a World Government of Laws, Representation, and civilized behavior; the only real obstacle is that so many people cannot imagine it! And this at a time when very many cities, with larger populations that some “Nations”, get along quite well without feeling any necessity for their Mayors to have people killed, tortured, or otherwise disenfranchised. disigny
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register