Prompt 1 The book A Concise History of U.S. Foreign Policy, by Joyce Kaufman, and the essay, American Foreign Policy Legacy by Walter Mead both acknowledge the history, and the importance of American foreign policy. The two argue that American foreign policy has always been an essential aspect of the prosperity and health of the United States. After reading these writings myself, I can agree that American foreign policy in the U.S. has always been detrimental to the success of this nation. Throughout history most Americans have had very little interest in foreign affairs, nor understood the importance. This essay will address the importance of foreign policy, why Americans have little interest in foreign affairs, and what the repercussions …show more content…
Both Kaufman and Mead agree that this lack of value has been traditional American thought. After analyzing Kaufman and Mead’s works I too can concur that foreign policy has never been very important in the lives of Americans. Domestic politics usually take precedents over foreign policy, but why? Americans simply do not care unless it is directly impacting them. “Generally, Americans do not give much thought to foreign policy. They don 't make decisions about candidates for office based on the candidates’ foreign policy positions unless the country is in a war or in a conflict where Americans are dying”(Kaufman 2). Kaufman also believes that American’s don 't know how they are impacted by foreign policy. “Most Americans pay little attention to foreign policy unless it appears to affect them directly”(Kaufman 3). Americans may simply just be ignorant when it comes to foreign policy. Mead argues that modern Americans are ignorant when it comes to understanding their diplomatic history. “Indeed, one of the most remarkable features of contemporary U.S. foreign policy is the ignorance of and contempt for the country’s own foreign policy tradition- a perspective shared by many other-wise thoughtful people” (Mead 164). This lack of understanding arguably could be part of the reason that Americans devalue the importance of foreign policy. This idea that the U.S. has never had a notable foreign policy …show more content…
Without understanding the importance of foreign relations the American people’s way of life could be at stake. Not only could the economic strength of the U.S. diminish, but the military might of the U.S. could also be compromised. Mead argues that without the centrality of foreign policy being evident in American politics the happiness of the world is at risk. “Since the United States has become the central power in a worldwide system of finance, communications, and trade, it is not only the American people whose happiness and security will be greatly affected by the quality of American foreign policy in coming years (Mead 176). I contend that without a strong emphasis on foreign policy, we could begin to see the end of American
What were the major impacts on American foreign policy during the H.W. Bush & Clinton Administrations? How did Bush & Clinton define the post-Cold War world for the United States?
As the United States developed into a world economic power, it also became a military and political power. Certain things led Americans to become more involved in world affairs, such as territorial growth. There were also consequences to the nation’s new role, like conflict between citizens and people of power. United States government and leaders had to learn the “hard way”, the challenges and negativity that they would face, such as loss of money and lack of control between certain nations, and the positive effects such as expansion of territory and alliances.
All of the history of the United States, foreign policy has caused many disputes over the proper role in international affairs. The views, morals and beliefs of democracy in Americans, makes them feel the need to take leadership of the world and help those countries whom are in need. The foreign policies of President Eisenhower will eventually led to the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War. President Eisenhower’s role with these policies were based on his military type strategies to safeguard a victory in the Global Cold War. President Eisenhower’s foreign policies led to an effective involvement in the Cold War and enviably the Vietnam War from an American perspective. President Eisenhower’s foreign policies when implemented would facilitate the goal of containing communism, and also
Between 1895 and 1920, the years in which William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson reigned in the presidents, the United States struggled for not only justice at home but abroad as well. During this period policies such as Roosevelt’s Big Stick diplomacy, William Taft’s Dollar diplomacy, and Woodrow Wilson’s Moral diplomacy were all used in foreign affairs in hopes of benefit for all involved. However, it would be appropriate to say that self-interest was the most important driving factor for American policy and can be exemplified through economic, social, and political relations.
McKinley’s presidency starting in 1896 restored American prosperity through the use of higher tariffs and the return to a gold standard. Foreign nations became dependent on the United States’ prosperity because economic problems, such as crop failures, were affecting their stability. This along with many other factors developed America’s strong sense of nationalism. The concept of social Darwinism was applied not only to domestic concerns, but to foreign concerns as well. Americans felt that their previous abilities to empower themselves over the Native Americans set as a precedent for their capability to influence foreign nations. America looked beyond its borders for new markets because after the closing of the frontier, a fear of possible resource depletion swept through the nation. America’s desire to colonize foreign nations was driven by economic intentions especially in Hawaii and Samoa, Cuba, and Puerto Rico.
When John F. Kennedy became president, he began a personal policy initiative to bring together African nationalist leaders. The policy was constructed to better the connection between the U.S. and Africa, and make an effective change in the direction of U.S. foreign relations. The Kennedy administration thought that the Cold War could be won or lost depending on whether Washington or Moscow won the hearts and minds of the Third World. During 1960-61 Africa was especially important because a wave of independence saw nineteen newly independent African states admitted into the United Nations. By 1962 both Washington and Moscow sought to add 31 of the UN's 110 member states that were from the African continent. the Cold War only deepened the need
George Washington, the first president of the United States, had written a very important historical speech and document towards the end of his time in office. He had written the Farewell address which focused on helping America understand the importance of preserving unity, acknowledging the rise of political parties forming, strengthening religion and morality, and he stated his position on American foreign policy. He addressed these ideas with strong tone and used incredible amount of dictions that strengthens his tone as well as representing his appeal to ethos to a strong degree. However, today’s society seemed to forget Washington’s position on foreign policy and has created a new form of the policy. But nonetheless as time grew, change occurs. In today’s society Washington’s foreign policy would include many positive and negative manifestations, but it is still a speech and document that will always apply to America.
3). Bremmer explains three possible choices that the United States could make about their potential actions towards foreign policy. The first is Indispensable America. People that are in support of this option claim that “ there is no way to isolate ourselves from today’s threats” (pg.4). Proponents also claim that the United States needs to help countries set up middle-class societies so that their middle-class people can buy goods made in the United States. These people also believe that America is the only power in the world that can make democracy a common government throughout the world. The second option that Bremmer talks about is the Moneyball America option. This option focuses around the idea that everything done by the government is done for a specific reason and a specific purpose. These people look at foreign policy and want to make it beneficial to the taxpayers in the long run. Making sure that they are not paying taxes for it to be wasted on things that we should not be getting involved with. Money Ballers believe that “ the President should safeguard America’s interests, not export American values, and
Hawley, C. (2003). U.S. foreign policy. Encyclopedia of American history: Expansion and reform, 1813-1855, 4, Retrieved August 14, 2008, from Facts on File: American History Online database.
LEADERSHIP AND FOREIGN POLICY: Contrasting between the liberalist and realist views, discuss the role of a leader in influencing foreign policy.
In his 1959 study, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, the well-known historian William Appleton Williams wrote, that in spite of its best intentions, American foreign policy was based on a one-dimensional American belief that Americans and the American government had all the answers to their problems. I strongly agree, for the most part, with that statement. The only aspect of American foreign policy that I disagreement is the firmness in which our government stands true to their decisions and re often inflexible enough to change them. The administrators in charge of our government dating back to the 19th century have always been too inflexible to tweak their application on foreign policy in the least bit. It has made way to a century of failure in foreign relations. America began building up its outdated navy ships in the early 1880's in preparation for what would be an American attempt at expansion. They wanted to become the premiere naval world power. They were already being acknowledged as whole of the great world strengths by other powerful countries. It didn't take long, by 1900; the U.S. began flexing its muscles. The Caribbean and Pacific Islands became a national interest. A classic example of which started the poor American foreign policy was in 1891 in Chile. Secretary of State James G. Blaine became involved in a border dispute between Mexico and Guatemala, tried settling a war between Peru, Bolivia and Chile. Chile held a riot against American troops. Blaine threatened Chile with war, and they were forced to apologize to America and pay an indemnity of $75,000. This established America as a world power, but also tarnished their role in foreign policy before it even got off the ground. Many more incidents like this occurred after the event with Chile, the biggest being the pursuit of the Panama Canal. America continued moving into to foreign land, and when problems arose, America began implementing an American model of government in these areas, believing that was the only way to solve the problems.
It is somehow strange for today’s reader to find out that the situation with America’s foreign affairs hasn’t changed much. As some clever people have said, “The History book on the shelf is always repeating itself.” Even after nineteen years, Americans think of themselves as citizens of the strongest nation in the world. Even after the September the 11th. Even after Iraq. And Afghanistan.
In conclusion, this extensive review of American foreign policy is just very broad. This topic is his shortened summary of a broad topic in a narrative arrangement, if they contributed anything to the historical understanding of this book. Ambrose and Brinkley made the topic very fascinating and easier to comprehend than a plain textbook. By writing Rise to Globalism and narrating stories without including unnecessary truths and statistics. Thanks to this book, I gained a more thorough understanding of the struggles in the Middle East after Vietnam and a new perception on where American presently stands in the world.
Endicott, John E.; Johnson, Loch K.; Papp, Daniel S. (2005) American foreign policy: history, politics and policy. N.Y.: Pearson.
In today’s society, most Americans lack the ability to understand politics and what they actually mean and do. Most people who live in America mainly care about what’s happening inside the country, rather than what is going on outside the country. This unfortunately is a major problem in the world today because understanding foreign relations is vital to America’s prosperity, wealth, and achievement. There are any ways in which someone can study foreign affairs; such as gender, race, world-systems, national security, power, cultural and natural identity, and bureaucratic politics. Personally, I found the world systems approach to the study of US foreign relations to be most enlightening because it shows how all countries have certain functions