While it might be true that ‘ideologies’ are very similar, you’re giving Britain far too much leverage in this new ‘empire’. If there is any alliance, surely Britain is better thought of as a ‘vassal’, especially if you consider just how uneven the the relationship is. Take some examples:

Britain cannot even fire cruise or nuclear missles without the US saying so; we have uneven extradition treaties, with British citizens faring much worse than Americans; British citizens can be incacerated without trial for three years by Americans; there are American bases all over British territories; American business dominates the UK economy (I wonder how important American business interests in the UK were in Blair’s thinking to support Bush).

Also, here is an intresting thought: spreading the Holy Trinity of Democracy, Freedom and Human Rights — The New Imperium as you call it — is fashionable amongst a new breed amongst the left-wing (“liberal hawks”), whereas its old champions on the right, are turning inward, shunning such adventures. At least this appears to be the case in the UK.

Incidentally, they have an auto-response on British TV for when people accuse the Commission for Africa Report of greed/imperialism/interventions — that half the members were Africans. See? Clean slate.

Lastly, the “left”&”right” categories are rather unsuited for discussion. Mainly because of the rampant desertion of members in either camp to the other after 9.11. I do think we need a clean slate and new membership table for the New Left and the New Right as well as better understanding of what it actually means to be any of those things.

The way the scenario looks from the US right now, strengthening what we are calling the New Imperium is a common program of both the Democratic and Republican parties. At a certain point during the presidential debates, Kerry was the one doing the sabre-rattling in the direction of Iran and North Korea, and Bush responded with a plea for a more inclusive multi-lateral approach. I thought this was a very telling moment.

Sepoy points out that the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ are of little value for talking about US international policy. This is true, but only if we are using left and right in the sense that has become conventional over here – to designate the Democratic and Republican parties, both of which are knee-deep in the miasma of New Empire. As soon as Howard Dean’s campaign was derailed and US liberals started talking about the importance of electability (meaning centrist politics, a strong national defense agenda, and candidates with military experience and maybe even religiously-infused rhetoric), the Democratic party ceased to have anything to do with the “left-wing” as it is perceived in most of the world. It has been probably a century since people considering themselves leftists, progressives or radicals in the US have seen liberal politicians as anything more than strategic allies (in the sense of voting for the lesser of two evils, much like the CPI and CPI-M in India generally tell their party members to vote for Congress if they are not fielding a candidate with a legitimate chance). Significant segments of the population opposed US involvement in WWII, for example, out of support for the right of residents of various world regions to self-determination. Indeed, WWII was seen by many in British and French colonies in Asia, and those sympathetic to their plights, as a conveneient means to consolidate extant imperial structures and linked economic systems that tended towards the exploitation of labor. The picture changes significantly with the onset of the Cold War, but much of the opposition to the wars in Korea and Vietnam also articulate a consistent position. If one takes the American left as an (admittedly fragmented) entity that exists independently of the Democratic Party, it may not be necessary to wipe the slate entirely clear and construct new membership tables.

To give my own eccentric view, I think the American imperium has a closer similarity with the 16th-century Spanish domination of Europe than the Pax Britannica. I have recently read Geoffrey Parker’s history “The Dutch Revolt,” which presents the anatomy of religious and political struggle over control of the Low Countries circa 1560-1600. The description of Dutch Protestant militants popping up to resist the Spanish professional army, as well as networks of exile churches in England and Germany, is uncannily similar to how the Iraq insurgency has been developing.

The Dutch revolt financially exhausted the Spanish monarchy, and was a major cause of its 17th century decline. The Spanish commitment to extirpate “heresy” at all costs was cognate to the Bush admin.’s unswerving commitment to stopping “Islamist terror.” I don’t see a similar monomaniacal motive at work in the maintenance of the British empire–and I believe U.S. hegemony is already evaporating, like Spain’s did, as military spending outpaces a stagnant economy.

So I’d be pleased to hear anyone’s thoughts on that.