> As a practical matter if the US turns isolationist then China will fill that gap.

That sounds like a very neocon view of how the world works. We have to maintain an empire because if we don’t, someone else will?

One nice thing about being a superpower is that we don't have to do anything. We can choose to be isolationist. That seems like a seductive option in the short term because it costs us nothing. But historically that approach hasn't worked out well for us in the past. Will the average US citizen be better off if China takes over as the primary global power?

And stop being disingenuous by labelling the current US-led global security system as an "empire". Words mean things and I'm sure you're smart enough to know what a real empire looks like, so I can't imagine what you think you're accomplishing by trying to frame the debate that way.

Why do you assume China will take over as a superpower? It’s certainly not the case historically that there’s a single global hegemon.

Also, I use “empire” because people are justifying our having military bases all over the world on that somehow benefitting america economically. I am not sure I understand why—forcing the world to use dollars as the reserve currency seems to be part of the theory. But if that’s the case then empire is an appropriate label.