Lazy Sunday CCCXLXIII: Empire

It’s been the week of American imperialism here on the blog, and I don’t necessarily mean “imperialism” negatively.  Here are some posts about how the United States is embracing its destiny (and the peaks and pitfalls of doing so):

Happy Sunday!

—TPP

SubscribeStar Saturday: American Imperialism

Today’s post is a SubscribeStar Saturday exclusive.  To read the full post, subscribe to my SubscribeStar page for $1 a month or more.  For a full rundown of everything your subscription gets, click here.

Apologies for the evening post, dear readers; Dr. Wife and I played a key role in balloon arch construction for a friend’s baby shower, and yours portly took an extended nap after overindulging on chicken wings and fried pickles.  Now that all of that succulence has gone straight to fat, I’m slowly rubbing my neurons together to hammer out this post.  —TPP

The excellent website Free Speech Backlash ran a lengthy essay of mine this past Thursday, 15 January 2026.  “Trump: Nationalist or Imperialist?” is an attempt to place the Nicolás Maduro arrest in the broader context of American diplomatic history, specifically as it pertains to our hemispheric policy.  That policy dates back to the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, which received an overhaul in the first years of the twentieth century during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt.  The so-called Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine argued that, in order to prevent European intervention in Latin America, the United States would intervene instead.

President Trump is clearly aware of this history—thus his invocation of the “Donroe Doctrine,” his own revival of the Roosevelt Corollary.  Chinese and Russian influence in the Western Hemisphere is increasing, and The Donald has to take action.  The action in Venezuela was not strictly about securing oil—we have plenty of it—but to prevent China from controlling major oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere.  The United States also sought to prevent China and Russia paying for that oil with their own currencies, as the purchasing of oil in US dollars ensures the dominance of our increasingly devalued currency.

China has also sought to make inroads into Panama, where the Panamanians currently run the canal that Roosevelt took drastic steps to ensure could be built—under American auspices.  One reason Trump wants to reclaim the Panama Canal is precisely because if we don’t, the Panamanians will likely fold to the Chinese.

Even Greenland, the most memeable of Trump’s neo-Monrovian ambitions, is an application of the Monroe/Donroe Doctrines.  The Arctic is emerging as a major trade route for global goods—the fabled Northwest Passage now a reality—and China has already made attempts to bring the Danish colony under its thumb.  The Danes lack the will and the capacity to improve and defend Greenland—or even to exploit its vast natural resources effectively—and The Donald sees this island as the key to securing dominance in the Arctic in the Western Hemisphere.

Indeed, it was Greenland that generated the most commentary (and heart-bleeding) in the comments section.  The most common refrain from the opposition was that the Greenlanders have the right to self-determination.  It’s an argument I’m sympathetic with in principle, but in Reality, Greenland has a population of fewer than 60,000 people—only barely double that of the municipal population of my hometown growing up in South Carolina.  If the world were a peaceful place, an independent Republic of Greenland could probably be viable as an extremely small (demographically) nation.  In the world of cutthroat geopolitics, with China and Russia on the rise and the Arctic opening up new strategic challenges and opportunities, an independent Greenland is a costly fantasy.

To read the rest of this post, subscribe to my SubscribeStar page for $1 a month or more.

TBT: Make Greenland American

Yours portly has a lengthy post over at Free Speech Backlash today about Trump, Venezuela, and the intersection between American nationalism (“America First”) and American imperialism (the piece is called “Trump: Nationalist or Imperialist?“).  “Imperialism” is a dirty word, but America is an empire, whether we like it or not.  Indeed, we’ve been an empire since at least 1898, when the United States gained Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines from Spain, and occupied Cuba for several years.  Cuba became nominally independent, but remained a virtual American protectorate until Fidel Castro’s Communist revolution in the 1950s.

Many on the Right are concerned that the Maduro capture is something of a “heel turn,” to use wrestling parlance, for Trump’s foreign policy, and that he’s abandoning America First principles in favor of open-ended American adventurism abroad.  My piece details why Maduro’s arrest is not another quagmire, and how it’s very consistent with traditional American foreign policy dating back to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823.

Similarly, Trump’s desire to annex Greenland, which sounds like a joke or someone playing a True Start Location Earth map in Civilization VI, is quite serious.  Greenland is in the Western Hemisphere, which—whether we like it or not—is America’s hemisphere.  American geopolitical strategy since 1823 has been to dominate this hemisphere to avoid a balance-of-power situation like Europe’s in the nineteenth century.  It is also seeks to prevent foreign intervention into the independent nations of this hemisphere.  One reason for the Maduro operation was to prevent Maduro from selling his country off to the Chinese, which would put America’s primary geopolitical rival in our backyard.

Similarly, China and Russia have designs on the Arctic, with the former particularly attempting to gain influence over the tiny Greenlandic population.  Denmark is entirely too venal to combat foreign intervention in its colony, so greater, more serious powers will do so.  With ice caps receding, the Arctic is the great oceanic chokepoint of the twenty-first century, and America needs Greenland to secure our interests in the Western Hemisphere—and to keep China out.

It’s unpleasant to think about Great Power politics in the twenty-first century, when we’re supposed to be beyond all that foolishness.  But it is the rules-based international order of the 1990s that is the aberration, not the kinds of aggressive power plays we’re seeing today.

Taking Greenland—which the Trump Administration seems intent to do—is part of the broader return to Reality the world is experiencing.  Reality is often hard, but it cannot be ignored.

I wish no violence upon Greenland or Denmark—far from it!  Greenland does not need to be taken by force.  At a certain point, the United States can offer Greenlanders a package so enticing, they cannot refuse.  Denmark should be eager to offload an expensive asset that they are not using—and that the bankroller of their social welfare state is willing to go to great lengths to obtain.

With that, here is 15 January 2025’s “Make Greenland American“:

Read More »

Make Greenland American

We’re just five days away from President/President-Elect Trump’s inauguration, and I’m as giddy as a schoolboy at the candy shop.  There is much to be excited about in a second Trump administration, but lately I’ve been whooping like a silver-backed gorilla (at the candy shop, presumably) over the prospect of purchasing Greenland from Denmark—and taking back the Panama Canal.

The coverage of President-Elect Trump’s desire to take Greenland features a mix of bemusement and alarm, which is pretty on-brand for Trump’s pronouncements.  There is a lot of chest-thumping from the European Union and the Danes, who both vow that the United States will never have Greenland.  President Trump, for his part, seems to be having fun trolling the stuffed shirts in Europe and the hostile American press, especially with his talk of annexing Canada (which is trolling; I think Trump is just having fun at Justin Trudeau’s expense).

What I like about all this annexation talk is that it hearkens back to the presidency of James K. Polk.  It was under Polk that the United States expanded to (mostly) its present borders, at least in the contiguous, lower forty-eight States.  Polk similarly struck an aggressively expansionist tone, proclaiming “Fifty-Four Forty or Fight” in reference to the upper border of the Oregon Territory.

Read More »