My Role In American Foreign Policy

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.

The era of globalization has witnessed the growing influence of a number of unconventional international actors, from non-governmental organizations, to multi-national corporations, to global political movements. Traditional, state-centric definitions of foreign policy as "the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states is no longer sufficient. Several alternative definitions are more helpful at highlighting aspects of foreign policy

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

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

Of the dozens of times America has chosen to get involved in foreign countries in the last 60 years, several stand out as obvious successes, including U.S.-led interventions in Korea, Kosovo and Lebanon. In addition, there are several well-known examples of seeming failure, as well as numerous outright refusals to become involved in the affairs of another nation. Each of these – successes, failures and refusals to act – help to answer the important question of what role America should assume in coming decades.

America has a long and rich history. Today, the majority views the United States as the most democratic and civilized country in the world. It is one of the largest economies on the planet. Additionally, it has massive social influence over other nations around the globe. It is for this reason that United States’ opinion is important in the formulation of global policies. The US is a world leader in several areas and has significant influence over global organizations such as the United Nations.

America’s role in the world is to advance the cause of a rising global middle class— free from oppression, free from want, free from fear. But after twelve years on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and after a global financial crisis and long recession that our people are still struggling to recover from it is understandable that many Americans would like to disengage from the world. Understandable, but not responsible. Because our country’s security—and our children’s prosperity—demand that we be more engaged with the world around us, not less. We do this primarily by making our nation more prosperous and secure here at home. And we do this by exercising our economic, diplomatic, military, and healing power around the world, in ways

The lesson is clear. These decent Americans who remain close to the people of the countries they are working in are also America's best ambassadors. In fact, three years after this book's initial publication, John F. Kennedy established the Peace Corps, whose philosophy and methods closely parallel the model of small-scale, people-oriented assistance Lederer and Burdick

With the US being a leader on the global scale militarily and economically, Trump has come into office with a new vision, a somewhat controversial one. This essay will critique Trump’s controversial foreign policy objectives

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,

As America’s focus on certain economic and social domestic issues shifted its approach to global affairs went right along with them. From Kennedy to Obama each president’s methods of handling global affairs were either inspired by their predecessors or focused on their own visions for America’s future. Kennedy was one of the few presidents who held foreign policy as one of his main priorities while in office. Since Vietnam exposed the United States limits of military power and the faults in its foreign policy (textbook 29.1) it was perfect that Kennedy was the one who came into the inaugural office at just the right time new, young and with fresh ideas. His views on global strategy involved collaborating with other countries to form alliances

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

With variety of job opportunities, chances to see different countries and more prominently, opportunities to learn more and more every day, international relations is an enjoyable field to study at college, especially for those people who want to broaden their horizons and foster their cultural

The current international system is fragmenting rapidly since the end of the Cold War. A lot of regions in the world are still trying to find the balance of power in the international system, which the U.S. often intervenes to provide its brand of “global leadership”. Some countries like China are emerging as a global power since a few years ago. Subsequently, this will lead to a major threat to the U.S. status as a global major power. The rise of power by China in the international scene signifies the unpredictable nature of the international system. I would argue that the three most critical challenges for the U.S. arising out of this environment are the future world globalization that will cause a conflict between its domestic and foreign policy, the rise of China as a global power, and the ever globalization of terrorism. I believe that the U.S. should be pragmatic in handling its foreign policy and handle each situation independently without a fix doctrine in order to minimize the unintended consequences produced by the globalization of the world.