Not really, no. There is a difference between conquering a country and forging an agreement to build a base. The U.S. form of influence, while still questionable in its morality, is a lot less intrusive. For all that America gets a bad rap for subverting world culture, it’s largly the case that it’s the result of selling people things they want, including movies, music, food, etc. for all that the French rant about American Imperialism, they still like McDonald’s fries.
The Brits tried to crush the cultures of their conquered nations through violence and forced indoctrination. If you want to compare that to something in American history, see the treatment of natives. Today there is no real comparison. That’s not to excuse the many downsides of the current U.S. system, but comparing it to the British empire is facetious.
Morality is orthogonal to their main point, which is that American influence in the world isn't built on military strength but by forging (usually) mutually beneficial military and trade relationships. It is through those relationships that the US is able to project force and maintain hundreds of forward operating bases, not by invading the countries and putting down fortresses that then have to be constantly defended against the local populace (for the most part).
This thread isn't about morality, it's about decline. I was comparing the state of American hegemony to that of Britain in 1946.
Right, and I ignored the morality of both and focused on the massive practical differences. So what’s the problem? They are manifestly different in almost every way, except possibly for aspects of the moral dimension which were both agreeing to ignore.
The Brits tried to crush the cultures of their conquered nations through violence and forced indoctrination. If you want to compare that to something in American history, see the treatment of natives. Today there is no real comparison. That’s not to excuse the many downsides of the current U.S. system, but comparing it to the British empire is facetious.