John Johnson 's American Idealism And Realpolitik Critique

Born out of the independence of a subordinate nation, the United States of America aggressively pursued a desire for expansion of power and influence in other countries through diplomacy and force so that they could gain political or economic power – or both. In this brief paper we will discuss the ambition for the U.S. to overthrow the government and economy of other nations, how it was rationalized, and which countries were subject to the foreign policies that the U.S. was going to subject them to; willingly or by force.

Historically, the United States has entered military conflict, direct and indirect, based on the desire to maintain its political ideals and or minimize the expansion of alternative governmental forces. The prevailing sentiment of American policy with regards to military occupation and direct conflicts focuses on the practical irradiation of communism. Military experts and academic scholars debate over the definition of war in America, blurring the lines under which policymakers identify conflict. Ultimately the political objectives, economic frugality and social climate shape the American “way of war”.

Over and over again, Williams illustrates this theme of “American Exceptionalism.” Throughout the book, there are several occurrences in which the “We are the best, and all that we are doing is of benefit to the world” mentality is shown. On one hand, there is nothing wrong with being proud of roots as an American and believing that America is the greatest country, but on the other hand, using this thought process in in order to legitimize the domination and control of other nations unlike America while preaching one set of values and acting on others, is wrong. We see these actions play out time and time again as America invades and controls other countries “to help” them, however, prohibits the country from experiencing the full advantages of self-determination – a value that America claims to hold i.e. a tragedy of American Diplomacy.

The United States has been a super power for decades, and since America has always involved themselves in other countries' problems. Instead of isolationism, the country has practiced getting involved. Since the Monroe Presidency, America has been named the World's police force. Dispelling anarchists, and stopping coos, the united states portrays itself as the world protector. Since Monroe, some Americans have felt that isolation is the way to go, and most feel that it is our right to offer assistance. Two recent incidents, Operation Desert Storm and The War in Bosnia have allowed the United States to show off it's strength, both on the military and political level. It has also given the chance for America to evaluate it's foreign policy,

Ever since the beginning of time, there has been conflict and conflict will always play a role in the development of history. The world has experienced hundreds of wars with countless casualties, these wars date back to the 10th Century and forward to the present. The United States of America is no stranger to war having participated in over 100 wars either it being a small war or a world war. Michael C. C. Adams “The Best War Ever” gives a rational explanation on the events that led the U.S to become the powerhouse country after sacrificing so much for the war, or did they? In this paper we will support the argument made in Adams “The Best War Ever” Chapter four, appropriately titled “The American War Machine”, other primary sources used will be such as Harry S. Truman first speech to congress in April 1945 and General George S. Patton’s praise speech to the Third Army. The argument being that the U.S did in fact play an impacting role in the outcome of World War 2 but how it also used appearances as an advantage to further develop itself as an international force, just like the tale from the Trojan War, the Trojan horse was all about appearances but with a precise objective.

The United States “regular[ly] resort[s] to war” on the foundation of a “militant foreign policy,” which is associated with a “hegemonic national identity.”3 According to Hixson, the militancy of foreign policy stems from western Europe whose “colonialism and imperialism…flowed from the aggressive expansion of a…worldview that apotheosized its way of life as ordered, reasoned and providentially

As countries seek to avoid alliances that can lead to conflicts, noninterventionism has remained one of the most explored concepts in global politics. Having seen the impacts of the Revolutionary Wars on humanity and being home of people from different ethnic racial groups from Europe, the last 27th presidents of the United States have been adopting foreign policies that promote nationalism and internal growth rather than partnering with global powers. One of the approaches is isolationism, a policy that has always prevented the United States from involving itself in international conflicts. Since his reelection, President Woodrow Wilson has observed this tradition by maintaining neutrality for more than three years during the Panamanian Revolt against Colombia. However, the president should abandon this policy and adopt an approach that will protect humanity from the destructive war in Europe. As this paper seeks to discuss, joining the war offers more benefits to America and humanity than staying in isolation from world politics.

Within the President’s message he also employs an additional rhetorical feature in regards to its deliberative genre. Johnson spends a great deal of the speech explaining political plans and goals for America’s future. He also clarifies that he will “continue the work of President Kennedy.” The significance of this is that he has revealed his future agenda as well. By vowing to carry out the agenda of the Kennedy administration he is making a case for his assumed role of responsibility to keep the country in a forward movement. The deliberative genre here benefits his situation because he is demonstrating his hands-on approach to the sudden presidency bestowed upon him. A second example of the use of deliberative genre is when Johnson takes a stance on how the country will access nations abroad. He declares that “Those who test our courage will find it strong, and those who seek our friendship will find it honorable.” Here President Johnson has taken a stance against any doubts that America would not be able to handle such a tragedy in a graceful manner. This handling of words cultivates a positive and preserving attitude about America as a leading nation and loyal government.

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.

In 1965, the issue of civil rights was just beginning. Following the brutal attacks on the civil rights protesters in Selma, Alabama, President Lyndon Johnson addressed Congress on equal voting legislation. Johnson intended to unify the people in hopes that Americans could overcome a time where tension was rising between blacks and whites. Johnson spoke to the nation using a variety of rhetorical appeals and devices in order to express the importance of equal rights, to unify the country, and provide hope for the future of American equality.

Lyndon Baines Johnson’s use of ethos, or credibility, in his speech was very simple, but at the same time, very powerful. Johnson’s credibility simply comes from the fact that, at the time of the speech, he was the President of The United States of America. Although this seems very obvious, he reminds the audience of his power several times throughout the speech by referring to himself as “your President” (5,6). He also reminds the audience of his power by speaking about a bill that he plans to present, and three bills he has already passed, in order to fix the issue at hand. Although Johnson does well to make sure he is seen as an authority figure who should be listened to, he also does very well

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.

“…Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is

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

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.