The answer to this question depends on what definition you use. The dictionary definition reads: ”The policy of extending a nation’s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.”
A conservative will understand imperialism as the “territorial acquisition” that Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal executed several centuries ago and indeed by this definition the U.S. is not imperialistic and never has been. We likely never will be.
Many liberals understand imperialism to be “economic and political hegemony.” By this definition I believe they may have a valid point. The U.S. since World War II has been determined that the entire world share our democratic style of government. President Bush has been very determined that Iraq be a democracy. We in America know that this is the best form of government but not all countries and peoples are ready for democracy. Please see my page in this blog entitled “Everyone is not ready for democracy.” If a country has not evolved to the point where they can participate in freedom then it should not be used. There are cases where a monarchy would be recommended.
I consider myself to be very conservative but I have always wondered what right America had to push freedom and democracy on other nations. I am not saying that we should be callous toward their plight; we should in fact offer any help they may request in forming a democratic government. But by pushing our form of government on others I believe we are being imperialistic.
