I have a tendency to voice anti-imperialist sentiments and just want to be up front about where I’m coming from. I’m convinced that no nation can indefinitely maintain both an empire and a republic — the one or the other will ultimately win out. My loyalty will always be with the republic. Now it’s certainly possible to disagree with my premise, my choice, or both. Many Americans, I now realize, would absolutely choose empire over republic, and this tendency isn’t dependent on political party. Both Democrats and Republicans can be authoritarians (although neither are automatically so). However, democratic republicans can never be authoritarians — at least, not without betraying their fundamental principles. Once you drop the capitalization, you must again reckon with the underlying concepts that gave our major political parties their names. I realize that this probably sounds a bit old-fashioned and idealistic to many. The truth is, I’m a bit of an old-fashioned, idealistic sort.

Query from a friend: Would it be fair to say that imperial systems become more republican over time? This doesn’t contradict your original premise.

Well, Rome went from republic to empire, so the direction of movement isn’t inevitable. I think an empire can also go from expansion to consolidation. We usually use the term imperialism for just the expansionist phase, so our vocabulary for a consolidationist empire is not as well developed. Building Hadrian’s Wall was an act of empire, even though it marked a limit.

Personally, I do think that republican values in Great Britain contributed to the decline of the British Empire. For example, I think Gandhi’s nonviolent movement would have held less moral power over a Britain with a weak Parliament and a strong Crown. History is messy enough, though, that I certainly don’t claim my interpretation as an indisputable fact.

(This is a slightly revised version of a Facebook post. The painting above is Flags on the Waldorf by Childe Hassam.)