Foreign Policy : A Central Concern For The Average American

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.

There is not one American identity. There is not a single consistent plan for what American policy is, should, or will be. Sure, this political scientist might present a plan for a specific crisis, but there is always a politician in the wings with another plan to counter the first. Every politician’s opinion is different, just as every citizen’s is. Our experiences shape our identities, as does the information we are fed in school, by our families and friends, as well as the media. The view I have of the United States and its place in the world is quite different than most because I am a first generation American. Moreover, my family comes from Venezuela, where their international policy is starkly different than America’s. The United States of America’s international role has unquestionably shaped my opinions, outlook, and behavior.

From its humble beginnings, the United States of America has expressed its intention to assist individuals who desired freedom by serving as an exemplar of liberty. Originally, Americans sought to preserve their republic by avoiding all foreign altercations and external constraints. At the dawn of the nineteenth century, in his first inaugural address Thomas Jefferson warned his audience of the potential dangers of foreign affairs by stating, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none,” pleading for a delicate balance between national security and commerce. This sentiment on foreign policy was reiterated on July 4, 1821, by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams when he said, “America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.” At the dawn of the 21st century, the implications from Adam’s statement are no longer consistent with the demands of American national security. The key tenets of the Bush doctrine, democratization and preemption, have deviated from Adam’s vision and redefined United States foreign policy for the 21st century.

American foreign policy relates to what is done in foreign countries by the United States of America. The foreign policies include controlling of the governments of foreign countries or setting some rules in those countries. The foreign policy of America has always been changing all through the US existence. The changes have stemmed from the dynamics of exogenous and substantial influences of watershed up to the international system and also the effects and changes of endogenous inside the government of the United States. Outstanding assertions like the policies of Monroe, intercontinental encounters such as the Second World War, War of the Spanish and Americans, and the cold war and also conflicts that were termed as local including the Korean War and the Vietnam War considerably shaped the American foreign policy (Kissinger et al., 1969).

In George Washington’s Farewell Address, the first President declared to avoid “entangling alliances” and engaging internationally to not get drawn into war, which the US had followed unless it fell under certain circumstances. These certain circumstances entailed social demands and outbursts for a transition to an interventionist and almost bellicose ideology that drew in the United States to engage in foreign wars and policies.

Unfortunately indicative of the politics and policies in today’s terms, foreign policy increasingly occurs 150 characters at a time through Twitter, and the unhinged behavior often displayed by our executive leadership damages our national image and ability to effectively manage foreign policy. This fosters a political climate bent on retribution, vilifying dissent, and clear lacks of self-control does not convey an image of national strength and admiration. Unfortunately, this reinforces the stereotypical worldview of American’s and our politics as “the gun toting cowboy” that shoots first and asks questions later. While “the gun toting cowboy” is part of our culture as a nation, an “environment of threat inflation, frenzied overreaction, confusion, complexity, and uncertainty requires cool judgment” (LeVien 16), but cool judgement and detailed planning are not the hallmarks of a shoot-from-the-hip approach. Fulbright spoke to this in The Arrogance of Power in comparing two Americas when he clearly portrayed “the gun toting cowboy” as self righteous, narrowly egotistical, and arrogant in the use of power (Fulbright 245). This only reinforces Fulbright and Bacevich’s

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

Foreign Policy continues to be an important issue for the upcoming presidential elections. With recent events from ISIS, Russia, and Iran, this issue most likely will shape the decisions for voters at the poll. This issue will also be important for voters because the person that they vote into office will help make decisions that can affect numerous regions and/or groups around the world. Furthermore, as a result of globalization, anything that occurs overseas may have a drastic impact on our own economy. Consequently, this topic will grab voter attention when considering the

At the end of World War One, the American public were completely against becoming entangled in another European war which would cost American soldier’s lives and be expensive to the economy; this was a feeling which also ran through Congress. The feeling became known as ‘isolationism’. An isolationist policy meant that it focused on domestic affairs and disregarded international issues. During the period, particularly as World War Two grew nearer, it became increasingly difficult for US foreign policy to avoid becoming involved with foreign situations. Despite this, much of foreign policy during the period could be considered isolationist; this essay will attempt to

Multiple Characters throughout this book have provided sound reasons for the problems that we faced even today, with foreign policy. I have identified three characters who represent the good, the bad, and the ugly of foreign policy. The first character "the good,"

American foreign policy has gradually changed since the birth of our nation. On July 4, 1891, John Quincy Adams addressed the Senate and House of Representatives during a powerful Independence Day speech designed to prevent an alliance with the Greeks against the Ottoman Empire. Although sympathetic to their cause, he warned against involving America in other states’ affairs, stating,” America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to Freedom and independence of all”. This paper seeks to evaluate the implications of John Quincy Adams’ statement, examine the trends of foreign policy and national security from the late nineteenth century to the present, and address current policy issues regarding

A few years back while on vacation in Santo Domingo, I overheard a conversation between three American men who were sitting at a table behind me in a local restaurant. Their discussion peeked my interest because they were to talking about World War II and the Vietnam War, which happens to be a couple of my favorite topics of study, more specially they spoke on the foreign policies that dictated these wars. As their conversation progressed I discovered the names of these gentleman; George, Booker and Jack. George seemed to be the leader of the party, listening to him reminded me of a military general, he believed that America’s foreign policy should be to provide leadership throughout the world so it can maintain global stability. Booker’s opinion was different; his thoughts gave way to ideas of America working alongside other countries to resolve international problems and crises. Jack’s logic was unlike his friends, he believed that the United States should stop interfering in international affairs, reason being that the US is exploiting countries around the globe.

“The most frustrating and complex foreign policy issues in the world,” was a statement that was once used by past President Bill Clinton to describe foreign policy matters with the Balkans. This era of history is a classic example of America’s continuous battle between isolationism and internationalism. Given the circumstances that were occurring throughout the Balkans Region the United States really had no other option but to intervene. With America’s leadership and their power to influence the foreign policy that came to be established has made great changes in the Balkans, yet it brought burdens to the U.S as well. The Balkans has moved from the likes of war to reconciliation, from fragmentation to operative growth and from having a lack

Today some Americans consider that Washington's words are still wise ones, and that the USA should take away from world affairs whenever possible. In fact, , the US has been involved in world politics throughout the 20th century, and as

Previously, I perceived our opponents to be the “bad guys” and the United States to be the heroes that were helping people around the world. While this may be true in some applications, I’m no longer naïve to the fact that the U.S. isn’t handing out millions of dollars in economic interest simply because it’s the right thing to do. Rather, I believe that most military conflicts the U.S. has engaged in over the last century, as well as the current battles in Syria and throughout the Middle East, stem principally from economic motivations. While I’m undecided in the political debate that exists between political parties over the term imperialism itself, I’ve become keenly aware of how much of our country’s foreign policy is driven by the economic needs of its citizens. The profound change I’ve experienced is in remaining mindful as to the influence on foreign policy that receptive markets and favorable political conditions in countries throughout the world has.