Jungle Gym : National Identity And Core Values Influence On Foreign And National Security Policy

American foreign policymakers consistently justify the use of militaristic force via racism. According to Krenn, in foreign policy, there are two main types of racism: territorial and marketplace.3 The most common form of territorial racism is colonialism, which, in America, is exemplified through Manifest Destiny.4 On the basis of racism, colonial Americans assumed “the white race would overrun and displace the weaker races [Mexicans and Native Americans].”5 The colonialists viewed Mexicans and other non-white races as “backward, lazy,

America’s role in the international arena during the 1900s is best captured in the poem by Kipling, “The White Man’s Burden” and had been clearly articulated in the speeches of Roosevelt and Beveridge. The American government believed that it is the American duty to interfere and be an influential power in the civilizing of nations that American’s perceived as unable to rule over themselves or as savages, illiterate, and the cause of chaos which ultimately affects the America’s vision of successful world commercial activities. However, it must be clarified that this goal is characterized by conflicted opinions within the American nation itself. Some believed that America should not interfere with the fate of other nations and argue for their

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.

At the turn of the 19th century, the US was in a position to become the superpower it is today, after winning the Spanish American War, a new US viewpoint came to mind, the one of an imperialist. The driving forces of US imperialism in the late 1800s to early 1900s were to have new markets for goods to be sold, military expansion through new bases around the globe, and a need to uplift foreign cultures to American “standards”.

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.

After the Spanish-American war in 1898, America attained much power. The defeat of Spain led the U.S. to the broadening their horizons through international expansion. Seeing how the U.S. rivals had already established overseas empires, the U.S. wanted to emulate. They jumped into action and produced a ‘foreign policy’ giving America the right to build empires in areas such as Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Cuba. The american foreign policy of imperialism, exerting military, economic, or political control over weaker nations, was unjustified due to geographic greed for resources, unjustified subjugation, and cultural oppression through white washing.

The turn of the twentieth century brought about changes in all aspects of American domestic society and especially in the course of U.S. Foreign Policy. The factors leading up to American involvement in the Spanish-American War of 1898 and in World War II, respectively, mark drastic shifts in domestic attitudes towards America’s role in the world. Ostensibly, the decisions to intervene in Cuba in 1898 and in Europe in 1917 were both products of aggressions against Americans at sea, endangered economic interests, and the fear of European encroachment upon the Western Hemisphere. Domestically, however, the hyper masculinity and expansionist fervor precipitating the U.S. decision to intervene in Cuba contrasts sharply with the reform-driven decision-making process which preceded U.S. entry into WWI. Both cases of military intervention constitute acts of imperialism, albeit in different senses, as the underlying goal of the United States’ 1898 intervention in Cuba was physical expansion, while America’s longstanding quest for an Ideological Empire was born with entrance into WWI.

Prior to the French and Indian War, colonists were somewhat satisfied with Great Britain. The laws imposed on the colonies were usually unenforced giving the colonies free reign over most aspects of their life. Despite the distance between North America and the mother country, colonists considered themselves equal with British citizens living on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. At this point, the colonists had no intentions of breaking off from the mother country. As John Murrin says in his essay “The Dilemma of American National Identity”:

This book addresses America's undeclared wars or "small wars" in chronological order, dividing them from 1801 to the present into three sections; "Commercial Power," "Great Power" and "Superpower" to argue that, they have always played a key role in American international affairs. This story, he shows what a special relevance to the current "war on terrorism" and the future of American conflicts around the world. Beginning with a description of going to work on September 11 as the World Trade Center tragedy displaced the WSJ newsroom, Boot quickly gets down to some historical detail: from the U.S. expedition against the Barbary pirates to violent squabbles in Panama, Samoa, the Philippines, China, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Mexico,

entered a relatively short period of imperialism, and expanded its interests into the Pacific Ocean and East Asia when it occupied the Philippines and commandeered Hawaii in 1898 (Cox & Stokes, 2012, p. 33). As the U.S. continued to grow in strength and influence within the global community, it was evident that its isolationist based foreign policy was no longer practical. This realization was made further apparent by the consequences of the industrial revolution, wherein the U.S. was no longer completely isolated between European powers. As a result, the U.S. pursued an approach to spread democracy within the global community including, but not limited to, the various states, international organizations, and international law – this concept is known as the U.S.’ open-minded, or liberal, internationalist agenda (p. 23). Whereas isolationists resist the idea of the U.S. becoming actively involved in international relations, internationalists support that notion, as well as the U.S.’ participation in various global issues and organizations, such as the United Nations (Cox & Stokes, 2012, p. 162). Furthermore, the characteristic and ideology of internationalism is fundamentally the historical nature of the U.S.’ foreign

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

In “The Bush Doctrine: The Foreign Policy of Republican Empire,” Thomas Owens provides additional evidence to reject the dominant narrative of the Bush Doctrine as a neoconservative policy and argue for continuity in US foreign policy . He states, “the Bush Doctrine is only the latest manifestation of the fact that US national interest has always been concerned with more than simple security - it

Guzzini (2013) defines the important features of international relations theories, which define the underscoring themes of “realism” as a dominant type of political methodology for American imperialism. Realism is a theory that relies heavily on the notion of self-interested and fear-based notions of protecting national interests, which the United States has utilized through its powerful military. This international relations policy has generated a trend in post-9/11 American politics that has defined a unilateral approach to national threats on a global scale. Guzzini (2013) defines the underscoring political issues in American unilateralism that defines the realist perspective as a type of political responsibility of the United States to protect democracy around the world. This form of neo-imperialism is based on the premise that the U.S. can validate or rationalize the invasion of a non-democratic/terrorist nation without diplomatic cooperation with the UN or other nations. These are the important aspects of Guzzini’s (2013) important evaluation of “realism” as a significant contributor to American foreign policy initiatives that involve unilateral military interventions without global multilateral participation.

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.