Is the information presented to support the idea accurate? I think the author over-emphasizes some aspects and ignores others.
For instance, he suggests that the US entering WW1 was the start of Stage 2. Previously he had asserted that each subsequent stage included and enveloped the previous stage, thus expanding the empire.
In my view, the US was much more imperialistic in the last 2 decades of the 19th century than they were in 1917 and beyond. Where we took the Philippines and various other islands from conquests in other wars, we did not do so at the conclusion of WW1 or WW2, although we certainly could have (as the Soviet empire did in fact do).
In addition, the author discounts the real threat which was the "Soviet menace". The Soviets were definitely expansive and the term satellite nations spawned from their direct control over sovereign states. The author does not take into account the formation of NATO as an alliance against the Soviets. He implies that the US forced itself onto the European nations on the false premise of protection from a mutual enemy.
However, if the threat was real and the resulting alliance was an honest one between independent partners, then his premise falls on its face. I believe that to be the case.
Overall, what do you think about the article? Does the article have valid points? The author does have some valid points. The military has had an increasing influence over the economy of the US. The influence of the US (politically, militarily, culturally) has expanded tremendously over the past 100 years.
He completely misrepresents other facts. Nixon's resignation had nothing to do with Vietnam or empire building. Nationalism has always been strong in the United States and did not start after the US hockey team won gold in 1980.
The author goes on to admonish Reagan as the avatar of the third stage of empire in the same sentence where he applauds Roosevelt. He claims Reagan wanted to unravel Roosevelt's safety net "by any means necessary". What the relevance this has to empire (let alone the veracity of the statement) is beyond me.
Does the analysis describe the truth? He cherry picks certain aspects, sprinkles in unrelated bullet points, and concludes with the ludicrous statement:
QUOTE
For the first time in history since the apex of Roman rule, one nation and one government and one military ruled supreme over the known world.
Other laughable statements:
QUOTE
The rise of George W. Bush, leader of the evangelical/political wing of American Christianity since 1996, to the office of the president has been the fulfillment of the dreams of movement conservatives.
QUOTE
Now, permanent war and rule by fear are accepted without question.
Bush has been a leader since 1996? I never heard of him on a national stage until 1999.
Permanent war is accepted without question? BY WHOM?
We are ruled by fear? Fear of what, exactly?
The author, although he started ok, went off the deep end.
What is your reasoning behind your answer to 3rd question? His logic is garbage. His statement of fact are flawed. His viewpoint is a bit less than objective.