But not really close to addressing the point.

"Actually its Ferguson's argument, not mine..."

Rubbish. Have you read Empire? He details the sins of the British Empire in some detail. That on balance he judges it a net good compared to the demonstrably montrous alternatives does not make his argument one-sided; it merely means he arrives at a conclusion.

You mean "Colossus" surely. I find it a less than comprehensive conclusion, given his narrow (and to my mind suspect) focus. But you and I differ on this, which is only to be expected.

"And here I thought conservatives (in whose company I've grouped you, apologies if I've done so unfairly) decried that kind of moral relativism."

You've been reading Glenn's blog too long.

Hmm.

"As for Ferguson's "pragmatism", its again telling he opts for empire and nothing else. In my experience pragmatists would go for what works best, not what they prefer.

He doesn't 'opt for empire' and nothing else. He's writing books about empire, because it's a concept which needs arguing for.

And he has yet to expound a reason to give the concept consideration given its overall history when practiced over the ages.

Ferguson is making an argument, not against all nation states, but against throwing the idea of empire out on the trash heap. And he's not just defending the idea - he's reminding us that America has never been anything else, as much as many Americans would rather erase the word from their lexicon.

So we should forego our heritage and simply colour the atlas pink? Keep in mind the reason Americans dislike the term, never mind the conotations of 'empire'.

"But perhaps I'm giving him too much credit; he does seem to be a niche author, after all."

He has a niche point of view perhaps, but he is undoutedly the best known and most widely read historian of his generation. Glenn is naval lint beside him.

And "Mein Kampf" was more widely read in the mid-to-late 1930s than "Sein Und Zeit" by Heidegger, but that hardly grants it or its author lasting importance. The sad bit is that Ferguson possibly will outlast most others and his somewhat twisted view of history will be influencing our successors. More's the pity.

"Oh I agree. "Morality" is really the providence of men and not nations. However the quest for empire carries with it significant empirical consequences, which like it or not cannot be declared "morally neutral"

Sure, but nor are they inevitable nor is there only one strain of empire; there are many kinds, some carry far greater "empirical consequences" than others.

Granted, although one could quibble that such consequences obviate the advantages or advances of empire in the first place. Ultimately it depends upon one's moral code and what one is willing (or unwilling) to live with.

America is arguably the result of continuing imperial acquisition and expansion - it just depends where you draw the line.

True enough, although the persistence of the Federal Republic system kind of minimizes the 'imperial' aspect do you think?

Beyond the military sphere, we are discussing economic and cultural empires, or hegemony or softpower as Joseph Nye calls it. Ferguson's point is that America has that power, and it should not be afraid to use it to promote its own values

Something we were much, much better at doing prior to the Bush Administration, don't you agree? Sadly those resources (never mind the moral authority that fueled them) have been all-but obliterated since 2003. Something Ferguson should be able to see if he'd just take off his rose-glasses.