the late 20th century A.D., just asnRome had to have such in the thirdncentury B.C. Unfortunately, nownour influence is commercial only; itnis no accident that the Iran-Contranimbroglio, which involves — andnmenaces—our legitimate imperial interests,nrevolves around a financialn”deal”—arms to a hostile tyranny innthe Middle East for cash to help overthrowna hostile tyranny in CentralnAmerica. “Send in the Marines!” appealsnto quite a different kind of spiritnfrom “Send a Marine to collect thencash.” Even so, the phenomenon ofnone loyal if misguided Marine officernstanding up for our national interestnstill inspired the nation. As moviencritic Fredy Buache of Lausanne wrotensome years ago, “If you deprive peoplenof genuine fervor too long, a littlenorange syrup will bring them to tears ofnemotion.” Unfortunately, the orangensyrup hardly works at all with thenmedia or most of our political leaders,nand it simply is not a wholesome dietnfor the nation for any length of time.nCan we inspire respect beyond ournborders when we have such difficultyninspiring loyalty within them?nWerner’s analysis is alarming: Likenthe diagnosis, AIDS-positive, it seemsnto point to inevitable debility andndeath for postnational “nations.”nWhat Werner calls the “democratizationnof treason” is rather like the generalizednimmune deficiency of AIDS.nThe body’s ability to fight disease isndestroyed, and death becomes inevitable.nMedical researchers are franticallynseeking a vaccine against AIDS. Cannwe find a vaccine against spiritualnAIDS? Treason is a spiritual immunendeficiency, and the vaccine—if therenis one—will have to be spiritual.nTreason is a social symptom of anM y t h s of Imperialism by Arthur M. Ecksteinn”The day of small nations has long passed away. Thenday of Empires has come. “n—Joseph ChamberlainnThe Africans by Ali Mazrui, Boston:nLittle, Brown; $29.95.nEurope’s Myths of Orient by RainanKabbani, Bloomington: IndiananUniversity Press; $19.50.nEmpires by Michael Doyle, Ithaca,nNY: Cornell University Press;n$23.99.nIn a rational world, the term “imperialism”nmight have been a carefullyndefined and useful tool of poliheal andnsocial analysis, part of the study of hownempires come into being. But the storynof “imperialism” is typical of the decadentnintellectual history of our century.nThe word has hardly ever beenncarefully defined. That is not surprising,nsince the word has hardly evernbeen intended as a serious tool ofnintellectual analysis. Rather, “imperialism”nhas been persistentiy employednArthur Eckstein is professor of historynat the University of Maryland.nby a coterie of alienated intellectualsnin what one might call a masqueradenof analysis: various purported “explanahons”nof empire that are in realitynmere exercises in easy moral condemnationnand savage political polemic.nAs a result, it is only very recently thatnany objective attempt has actuallynbeen made to understand the truendynamics of the growth of empires.nFrom the beginning imperialism hasnbeen not a term of rational analysisnbut rather “a slogan of politicalncombat”—what the Germans call anSchlagwort. As with any such politicalnslogan, the meaning of the word hasntherefore tended to vary widely overntime, depending on the political needsnof its users.nOriginally, “imperialism” arose as ancondemnatory description of the regimesnof Napoleon Bonaparte andnthen Napoleon III: It derived from thenword “emperor,” and it meantnmilitary-dictatorial internal governmentn(or “Caesarism”). “Imperialism”nfirst entered English usage in thennnspiritual disease. A naive society, beforenthe days of the electronic “globalnvillage,” could thrive on its nationalnsubstance. A society where all valuesnare “up for grabs” cannot. As HansnMillendorfer of Studia Austria says, “Anvalue-free (wertfrei) society is valuelessn(wertlos).” The Communist world isnnot a “nahon,” but it does have its ownnperverted “imperial” vision. The traitorsnof the West pay homage, consciouslynor not, to the superiority ofnthat perverted vision. We cannot ridnourselves of treason unless we cannproduce a better one. The intellectualnwing of conservatism is ill-advisednto be supercilious towards thenattempts — however inelegant—ofngroups like the “Moral Majority.”nJerry Falwell may not have the wholenanswer, but Norman Lear and “Peoplenfor the American Way” certainly havenno answer at all.n1870’s—and again, as political polemic.nThe debate was over Disraeli’snforeign policy, and in particular hisnproposal to have Queen Victoria proclaimednEmpress of India. Disraeli’snopponents correctly saw this plan asnpart of an attempt to whip up popularnenthusiasm for British overseas expansion,nand also for the monarchy. Theynsaw this as dangerous: Britain alreadynhad enough overseas responsibilities,nand the existence of a British Empressnwas repugnant to British democraticntraditions. They called Disraeli’s ideasn”imperialism”: “a new word to me,” asnLord Carnarvon wrote in 1878. Thennew word now assumed a doublenmeaning. As Gladstone put it, Disraelinwanted “an internal ‘Caesarism’ joinednwith external territorial aggrandisement.n” In the short run, of course,nDisraeli won: Victoria became Empressnof India. But “imperialism” nownentered the English language as a termnof opprobrium, and a term connectednwith policies of external expansion.nWe should note that the “antiimperialists”nof the 1870’s had arguednthat overseas territories were politically,nmilitarily, morally, and (above all)nfinancially unprofitable. But 30 yearsnlater, this argument was turned on itsnNOVEMBER 1987131n