> Large geographic size…Similar to #1, this makes it hard for aggrieved, disenfranchised groups to collectively rise up, as everyone is literally all spread out

> Large geographic size…Similar to #1, this makes it hard for aggrieved, disenfranchised groups to collectively rise up, as everyone is literally all spread out. This is not at all obvious: sometimes different groups are disproportionately present in one particular area. > China has no imperial ambitions. The annexation of Tibet was 70 years ago. The last incident of expansion could technically be in in 1997 when Hong Kong was transferred to China from Britain Pedantically, don’t forget Macau. Taiwan remains. And Sino-Indian conflict is still on the rise. Generally, the expansion of China’s overseas presence prima facie looks imperial. It may not be, but some reason should be given as to why! > America’s large bureaucracy and its constitutional republic composed to hundreds of Congressmen and Senators creates a lot of redundancy and limits the damage any one individual can do One might have thought that, but on the other hand the US president has rather a lot of power (see e.g. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/); https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/preside... of course, the bureaucracy may not follow the president, but I think that needs to be shown. > so many obvious methodological problems and dubious assumptions, such as that history must cycle or that empires must fall This is the most promising, I suspect, line of response—alas, it isn’t really explored much.