What should the United States be a Republic?Republic: would not take over other lands and focused on building within US borders
I have to agree with the previous post in that the definition of the republic given is contrary to its given understanding. If we are going to operate within this paradigm, I would say that there are significant signs to indicate that the United States is meeting this particular conception of the "Republic." There is a predominant focus in social and economic policy to building within US borders. The expansionism that this definition seems to criticize is not as present as it was in other times in US History. Some could argue that the strict reading of this definition would preclude any international conflicts, such as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, in these conflicts, the driving force is not expansionism and expansionist motives as much as a stated desire to attack enemies of the United States that have attacked the nation. Even conceding these two exercises as ones of expansion, the US is not demonstrating outwardly expansionist tendencies, meeting much of this definition offered.
I really disagree with this definition of a republic. The word refers to a form of government, not to a type of foreign policy.
However, given this definition...
I do not think anyone can or would really argue with this statement. It has been a long time since the United States "took over" any other country. I would say that we have not done that since the Spanish-American War (unless you count taking control of Micronesia after WWII).
However, I do not think that the US should be isolationist. We cannot just focus on our own country and not be involved in others. Globalization makes it so that the rest of the world matters to us too much and we cannot just hide ourselves from the rest of the world.