Has America become the new Rome?

This post’s title has fast become the growing question amongst historians as of late in which it has been debated that America is now considered to be that of the historical Roman Empire.  While such a question would tend to illicit much emotional debate over such a proposition, it’s rather short-sided to assume that the United States has become that of an empire.  The emphasis of this debate might stem from the fact that America, much like many early empires, took part in imperialistic tendencies in as much as America attempted to grow its land acquisition with throughout its early history but also recently as well.  And while this might be the case, it was the going trend at the time to try and acquire land through as could be seen in the events following -- World War I and World War II for starters.  

But in mentioning the current political as well as military role of America within the world today, it still resembles that of the Roman empire.  This notion is rather faulty as the United States is a country not an empire.  More so, the role America plays in today’s world is that of a globalized police force in that our Navy has patrolled many of the shipping lanes in multiple oceans for at least a century.  Without such a force during the second world war, this world might have a different face.  Similarly, current world affairs might be drastically different as well.  It could be said that a strong military holds much in the way of influence, yet the mere notion of freedom, liberty might hold an even longer reach when attempting to draw influence amongst the world’s continents and countries.

If we move to chapter 5, a series of questions are proposed.  These questions were “What is the purpose of life?  How should human society be ordered?  What is the relationship between human life in this world and the moral or spiritual realms that lie beyond” (128)?  These questions can have multiple answers from all walks of life both in the early civilizations but also in today’s modern societies.  To qualify the concept of order, Strayer writes of the legalist perspective as stating “Legalists generally entertained a rather pessimistic view of human nature.  Most people were stupid and shortsighted.  Only the state and its rulers could act in their long-term interests.  Doing so meant promoting farmers and soldiers, the only two groups in society who performed essential functions, while suppressing artisans, merchants, aristocrats, scholars, and other classes regarded as useless” (128).  

What’s interesting about this quote is that we tend to see the standard interpretation of the different peoples in society.  In this case, China didn’t consider those in the less physical realms of work “worth” any contribution to society.  As a result, they ended up facing oppression while those who farmed or were soldiers tended to reap the benefits.  This would seem to draw on future sentiments by Communist dictators such as Mao Zedong.  If we were to draw on these legalistic notions as a means of comparison to America’s early history.  It was the tyranny of the British king that forced the early settlers out of England and into what is now the United States.  But what is intriguing is the fact that our founding fathers sought to create a society where all peoples could coexist freely, where there was a sense of acceptance.  With the ease with which suppression of a civilization’s people creates turmoil, it’s not hard to fathom why as Strayer points out “...no philosopher or ruler ever again openly advocated its ideas” (129) even though legalistic ideas did play a role in further Chinese leadership.