Effects Of Power Fettweis On American Foreign Policy

Many other countries had similar ideals but different forms of government; America’s commitment to republicanism caused them to push their ideals on other smaller countries. Bradford Perkins explores the concept of a distorted prism, which he believes effects how America looks at the world and the effect it has on the development of the United States foreign policy. In his scholarly essay, “The Unique American Prism” Perkins believes America views herself as a model for the world to follow. These American ideals of individualism and republicanism are the main concepts discussed within the essay; he mentions how people distort the prism by their own personal experiences with which allows them to perceive the world as less than equal to America’s superiority. This can lead to problems in foreign policy due to the superiority complex. Perkins views this American exceptionalism as detrimental to foreign relations. He believes in isolation from foreign wars and conflicts, but is irresolute to decide if America’s global market should be expanded through foreign

Hard power and soft power are important factors when it comes to our nation and its role throughout the world. The differences between hard and soft power offer people a better insight when it comes to political power in our nation. Hard power deals with the aspect of changing the actions of others through things such as coercion; whereas, soft power deals with attraction and shaping what others want from a different perspective (Smith-Windsor, 52). These versions of power are crucial when it comes to the theory of international relations. A hypothesis that alliances are founded on calculations of national interest and do not withstand a conflict of those interests is christened “theory” in the current language of political science (Aron,

Jingoism intwined with governmental policy and “a majority…of Americans…grant[ing] spontaneous consent to foreign policy militancy” influences policies related to foreign and national security in the United States.1 European history of colonialism and imperialism impacted the development of foreign policy and national security. In Culture, National Identity, and the “Myth of America,” Walter L. Hixson leniently critiques American foreign policy, while advocating towards a more “cooperative internationalism.”2 Melvyn P. Leffler in National Security, Core Values, and Power fails to formulate an engaging argument for national security policies reflection of America core values. In reference to foreign and national security policy, both Hixson and Leffler refer to the impact of hegemony, with Leffler’s mention succinct and without specific detail. In the United States, foreign policy leans towards jingoism, while national security policy develops from general core values.

The doctrine of United States foreign policy has changed significantly during and after the Cold War, as the United States redefined its foreign policies during each of these eras. Although inarguably United States promotes liberal democracy, how it goes about doing so currently, could not be necessarily categorized as a liberal approach. During the Cold War United States had a more liberal approach towards promotion of democracy. Yet this approach has since changed as it did not emphasize enough the importance of other states materialistic needs and its impact on their international behavior, thus leading United States to adopt a more constructivist perspective toward its foreign policy.

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

Throughout post-WWII history, the United States has taken on the role of the world’s police. They feel the obligation to ensure the spread of their ideals for selfish and self-righteous reasons. John Mueller and Odd Arne Westad share their arguments as to what the United States’ actions have produced during the Cold War in Eastern Europe, Korea, and Vietnam and during the post-9/11 period in the Afghanistan and Iraq. While some of their arguments are valid, others are flawed.

With the race for the presidential election under way, American foreign policy has entered the minds of many Americans. Like today, foreign policy was of great importance throughout the twentieth-century; it has and continues to play key developmental roles in economic, cultural, diplomatic, and social factors that America has faced. By looking directly at the United States motivation in entering the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II, it can be seen how these factors developed since the turn-of-the-century. In this paper, I will compare and contrast the United States’ motivation for entering these wars by examining the four key factors of foreign policy listed

After earning his master’s degree and Ph. D from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Famous historian William Appleman Williams of Atlantic, Iowa, wrote the book, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy in response to the rampant changing things happening around him. Enraged, Williams’ addresses several points with foreign policy being the main one. He encompasses several themes throughout his book such as American capitalism, the failure of American liberalism, and the Open door notes. These themes help convey his view on the matters at hand, which for a lack of a better term was pissed. Quite frankly, Williams’ gets straight to the point without being around the bush with his extremely biased views by going into depth about America’s morbid foreign policy.

As Senator Arthur Vandenberg famously stated in 1947, “we must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge.” Vandenberg’s declaration suggests that domestic policy differences should not affect how the United States conducts itself abroad. This notion is especially relevant in understanding the discrepancies – or lack thereof – between foreign and domestic policy in the modern United States. Since its founding, the United States has prided itself on its exceptionalism, with many of its leaders endorsing a “foreign policy driven more by domestic values than by the vagaries of international politics.” In recent decades, however, this principle has been tested. Since the end of World War II, the United States has emerged as an international

In “Questing for Monsters to Destroy,” John Mueller, an American political scientist, says American policymakers put “a truly massive emphasis on exquisite theorizing and on defense expenditures,” because these policymakers, “became mesmerized by perceived threats that scarcely warranted the preoccupation and effort,” of actual military action (p 117). He argues that American decision makers constantly saw Russia’s actions as bigger threats than they really were and acted accordingly, which resulted in the U.S. spending money and troops to fight wars they should have never been involved in.

After WWI the U.S. did not want to get involved with anymore wars. Hitler rose to power and blamed all of Germany’s problems on the Jewish. He took over Austria and was looking to take over more territories. Great Britain, France and Italy signed the Munich Pact Germany which gave Germany Sudetenland. They did this in hopes for peace but it did not do so. The 3 Neutrality Acts were made, the 1st and 3rd act made it so Americans couldn’t sell arms or lend money to any waring country. The 2nd allowed them to do so but they warring country had to pick it up and pay in cash. When japan attacked China, Roosevelt felt strongly about war reaching the U.S. The Lend-Lease Act allowed the U.S. to sell arms to another nation without them having to pay cash. Roosevelt made the people believe that the U.S. would be drawn into the war no matter what so they choose to support the war.

As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy,

The balance of power theory is viewed as critical policy in the handling of international relations. To fully comprehend how the balance

After December 26 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, the bipolarity of the international system was effaced. In the post- Cold War era, the United States faced the problem, without a defined enemy, to adopt a new foreign policy. To begin to analyze the political foreign policy of the United States, one must first understand the international system. According to Political Realism, a theory of international thought, the state is the key unit within the acts within the system. These states act according to their key norms, which are allowed by the system. However, these sates are also affected the domestic and external factors which control how they act. The domestic factors include political culture, their economic system, the leadership

International relations have always been a very important topic. Knowing and understanding the history of international relations is vital to learning how it has evolved and how we can handle it today and in the future. However today our historical egoism, or the idea that we believe we are better and more advanced than those in the past can blind us. In reality, history is a bit more complicated. We often ask if it is a never-ending march of progress or one conflict after another? The best we can do is learn and try to create a better future. With that said, we will be looking at two important factors in international relations: power and morals. It has been a widely-debated issue whether it is better to use power or morals in international relations. Some argue that power is the answer to international relations, and others believe that morals are the answer. In the end, several theories, authors, and examples can lead us closer to the aptness of international relations.