Although I would argue that the differences between these three presidents are exaggerated, historians generally say that each had a distinctive foreign policy. Theodore Roosevelt is associated with “big stick diplomacy,” William Taft is said to have practiced “dollar diplomacy,” and Woodrow Wilson’s diplomacy is characterized as “moral” or “idealistic.”
Theodore Roosevelt’s foreign policy stance is usually called “big stick diplomacy.” This comes from a supposed African saying that he liked to quote: “walk softly but carry a big stick.” Roosevelt’s “big stick” was the US military. He believed that it was appropriate to use military power to impose America’s will around the world. He was most able to do this in Latin America. In contrast to Roosevelt, Taft is said to have used American economic might, more than its military power, to get other countries to do what the US wanted. He wanted American companies to invest in foreign countries so the US could use its economic importance in those countries to push them to do what the US wanted. For example, if an American fruit company would run large banana plantations in a Latin American country, it would be so important to that country’s economy that the US would be able to have a great deal of influence on the country.
In contrast to both of these presidents, President Wilson is said to have engaged in moral or idealistic foreign policy. In other words, he is supposed to have tried to do what was right, rather than trying to use American power to push other countries around. For example, he did not try to stop the Mexican Revolution in which a Mexican dictator was overthrown and a democratic government was elected. The democratic government was less friendly to the US than the dictator, but Wilson did not step in. This is seen as an example of his more idealistic approach to foreign policy.
In these ways, historians have tended to say that these three presidents had different foreign policies.
No comments:
Post a Comment