To Build an Empire

Tolerance and hyperpowers
History often remembers empires as power-hungry, violent aggressors that conquer at the expense of victim nations. In Day of Empire, Amy Chua uses case studies of empires of the past, present, and future (such as Rome, America, and potentially, countries like India) as well as failed “hyperpowers” (such as Nazi Germany) to challenge this understanding of empires as hostile and malign beasts.
Instead, Chua claims it is tolerance that enabled the growth of every single hyperpower in world history. Ironically, this very same tolerance sows the seeds of intolerance, and thus imperial decline. Intolerance went hand in hand with dwindling imperial power. Relative  tolerance was a crucial building block of empire, by attracting the loyalty of subjects. And while standards and circumstances might change, the relentless logic of empires persists. Chua uses the lessons of history as relevant warnings to American readers that the creation of an American empire would eventually undermine America’s principles of tolerance.
Bygone empires
In the quintessential example of Rome, tolerance took the form of making Roman citizenship as desirable as possible, offering perks like social mobility. By making Roman identity a desirable yet attainable commodity, Rome was able to incorporate various peoples into its empire. However, as Rome became a continuously larger empire, Roman culture became unable to accommodate vastly different cultures. Tolerance clashed with intolerance when, for instance, Rome’s coercive adoption of Christianity sparked backlash among conquerable peoples. While tolerance made Roman citizenship desirable to conquered peoples, it became a strategic burden in Rome’s expansion; finally, intolerance alienated Rome’s own subjects.
Tolerance manifested itself differently in other empires. The Tang dynasty in China used strategic tolerance in that it did not force a Han Chinese identity upon non-Chinese subjects. This strategy enabled expansion northwards, beyond the Chinese core. However, this tolerance also prevented a patriotic “glue” from forming that could hold the disparate groups together. The same tolerance that enabled the growth of an empire was also responsible for that same empire’s brittleness and demise.
Lessons for the future
In an age of globalization, America is at a tenuous point of self-evaluation. The debate whether the American “hyperpower” is or should become an “empire” is fierce. Chua defines hyperpower as a nation or empire whose power in all respects (such as economic and military strength) enables it to effectively dominate the world, while an empire exerts more control (rather than simply power) over the world. Proponents of an empire, though hardly any would define themselves as such, argue for America’s free reign to realize democratic principles throughout the world.
For Chua, this is a dangerous path. The United States lacks the “glue” to create a feasible empire; American democracy and culture are rarely clamored for, and few nations are keen to give up their sovereignty, however gently. The flare-ups of anti-American sentiment in places like the Middle East reflect the infeasibility of an American empire. As well, America’s exclusive citizenship means it is denied the Roman path of strategic citizenship. However, America can give outside nations a stake in America’s success.
By proposing multilateralism in issues like environmental degradation, Chua suggests America would not be surrendering its global status, could build common purpose among nations, and overcome collective action problems beneath Washington’s aegis. This situation, rather than an empire, would be best for America’s long-term status in the world.
When a country’s hyperpower status is attacked, as America’s was on September 11, 2001, or when an economic crisis threatens a country’s strength, as is the case today, fear of a degrading global status can challenge a country’s principles. To protect itself in a time of crisis, America has undermined its principles of tolerance. In Chua’s view, xenophobia is winning as shown by tempering American attitudes towards immigration, and anti-Americanism is a reaction to this closing.  Rather than moving away from the ideas of tolerance upon which America was founded, Chua urges further work with other countries to create global goals. Only then can America get the world back on its side and stay true to itself; a hyperpower, if it can maintain it.