Tuesday, March 13, 2012
UMW HIST300F: Making the World Safe for Democracy (Empire)?
When Progressives considered American empire-building and war, these two foreign policies challenged their specific moral visions and idealistic dreams of American-led internationalism. How and why did some reformers embrace empire, while others argued against it? Could American Progressivism and the push to spread moral democracy around the globe succeed without an aggressive foreign policy (your opinions are welcomed of course)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Some progressives embraced empire because they saw the United States as a beacon of hope bringing democracy to other countries. One of the key ways they were able to justify imperialism was to argue that American expansion led to progress and economic development. Other such as Robert La Follette did not agree with aggressive United States foreign policy, Dawley writes, because “… running the government from the deck of a gunboat was an unacceptable infringement upon republican virtues .“ (Dawley, 92) I do not think American Progressivism and the push for moral democracy could have succeeded without an aggressive foreign policy. Democracy is suppose to be about government run by the people. American progressivism wanted to instill democracy in other countries but without letting the countries be in control. An important question Dawley ask at the beginning of his article is, “ How could they uphold international cooperation in the face of U.S. marines landing. “ (Dawley,77) This is a key reason American progressivism and aggressively spreading democracy outside the united states does not work . It has harder to uphold 'international cooperation' if you are trying spread a form of government such as democracy with military force.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the conflict between imperialism and American ideology had no hope of being resolved, even if the imperialism of old gave way to a new version supporting not just the spread of American values, but the morality of democracy. As Ashley stated above, some progressives viewed the United States as the shining nation on a hill meant to inject its superior morality into the rest of the world. Dawley points out as well that racism also played a role in progressive imperialism. American Imperialists still sought to uplift the races they deemed inferior, as seen in the instances of Cuba and Haiti. Racism was important in the sense that imperialists and progressives viewed these races as naughty children in need of discipline and structure rather than through the lens of straight-up hatred.
ReplyDeleteAmerican progressivism and the push for democracy failed because of the intimidating military force. In order to convince countries to join a cause, there needs to be combined use of soft and hard power. The threat of force and the demonstration of power did nothing more than bully the nations that the US sought to wheedle away from what they viewed as lesser governments. Had the United States attempted to lure people to a democratic form of government rather than undermine its own cause by contradicting the idea of a people's government, then perhaps other nations would have seen the effects of democracy in a more pleasant light.
First, I think it is important to address the last question listed about aggressive foreign policy. If someone reviews the ways in which America forced democracy upon different nations throughout Latin America and the Pacific, it becomes more clear that a docile approached would not have worked nearly as well. The United States made a point to illustrate the prowess of their military, whether they used it or not to accomplish goals was another question. In several cases, only the presence of this military power was needed to make significant changes. In addition, once American gained control of nations in Latin America in order to instill some sort of democratic system, like Ashley said above, the US did not give up control right away. These examples all point toward an aggressive method of foreign policy used by America. In regards to the supporting new version of American-led internationalism, I can see pros and cons to both sides. From one perspective, those who supported the approach realized that through this method of American internationalism, the US would be able to effectively spread the benefits of a democratic nation to other parts of the world. However, on the flip side it can come off as backwards to suggest that through aggressive foreign policy, Americans would spread democracy to other nations. The militaristic nature of the approach tends to draw back from the authenticity of the conversion.
ReplyDeleteI pretty much agree with what the posters have commented regarding the issue of aggressive foreign policy. I also agree that foreign democracy could have worked without aggressive foreign policy. The reason that American progressivism failed abroad because of the heavy usage of military force. In the article, Dawley provided a quote from an anti-imperialist that stated: "running the hemisphere from the deck of a gunboat was an unacceptable infringement of republican virtues." (92). Others that were advocates of progressivism stated that racial paternalism was the best way to build an empire. For example, in Cuba, Mexico, and Haiti, the Americans thought that intervention over there was justified because they wanted to teach them how to operate self-governance. The issue in that regard is that the US did not allow them to govern themselves, the US military controlled the areas. I really relished this reading because Dawley used surfeit resources to defend his arguments. He provided ample details how American officials attempted to "liberate" the inferior countries. I do agree in a sense that using military force does not necessarily form a democratic state.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s clear that the people who really embraced this sort of empire building were the ones like Roosevelt who felt that the United States had the right to protect their economic interests in other countries no matter what it took. There is no way that American Progressivism and the push to spread moral democracy could succeed without an aggressive foreign policy. By deciding to invest in other countries that weren’t politically and economically as stable as the U.S., they knew that things were going to have to change in order for American investments to be successful there. An aggressive foreign policy was the only way to insure that success.
ReplyDeleteHow and why did some reformers embrace empire, while others argued against it?
ReplyDeleteFor me, the answer to this question lies within the language chosen by both Roosevelt and Wilson ... a language, which is the representation of their culture.
While reading the Roosevelt Corollary I was initially amused at T.R.'s ambiguous and rather contradictory statements, then I started to pick up on a fairly aggressive, rather maniacal tone, that slowly evolved into some kind of creep strange which remained ensconced within the rhetoric of fascism.
1) Within the first sentence Roosevelt shows his true intentions by stating "It is not true that the United States feels any land hunger or entertains any projects as regards the other nations of the western hemisphere SAVE SUCH AS ARE FOR THEIR WELFARE" (Roosevelt, 1). While very craftily written, Roosevelt states in the end of his sentence that any country the U.S. doesn't see fit to self-governance is open to regime change.
2) Roosevelt goes on to state “Chronic wrongdoing, or an IMPOTENCE which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society … ultimately requires intervention by some civilized nation” (Roosevelt). Notice the word impotence, which arises twice within this paragraph, and is intended to emasculate Latin American societies that don't behave civilized (i.e. white).
--- This whole paragraph is loaded with unbearable, yet well written racism. I point this out because when you read Wilson's disavowment of territorial conquest, you notice a much more calm and friendlier tone. Thus, one has to take into account the upbringing of various individuals and the different beliefs that were instilled upon them within society.
1) Wilson's father was one of the founders of the Southern Presbyterian Church in the United States, ensuring Woodrow Wilson was brought up in a very religious atmosphere. Later on in life Wilson would take on somewhat of a messianic complex, believing he would bring peace to the world (like Jesus). The point is that Wilson's upbringing prevented him from taking the hardline approach of a Teddy Roosevelt, regardless if they had the same intentions.
All in all I'd say its the experience of the individual that dictates their stance on foreign affairs. For instance, Teddy Roosevelt had experienced first hand the times of the "white man's burden", engaging in both warfare and diplomacy. Wilson on the other hand was a lawyer and the son of a zealous preacher, so even if their policies are reflective of each other, Wilson doesn't have the "brash" of a T.R. to come out and say it ... it's all in the text.
Ideally progressivism was supposed to be the way for the US to spread democracy across the world and especially the western hemisphere. Democracy was supposed to be inherently good. Many reformers saw the US as the police force that was supposed help to civilize and stabilize other nations. Also racism was a key factor for many progressives, they saw these smaller nations such as Cuba, Haiti, Puerto Rico, etc, as there incapable children and uncle Sam had to teach them the ways of self governance. Of course as the US intervened in these nations there was much money to be made by US investors, which was another incentive. Others thought that the uses of military force by the US in these other nations were too great. Personally I do not think that the push of US democracy around the world could succeed without aggressive foreign policy. The US had to be aggressive in these nations by using both dollar and gunboat diplomacy in order to ensure that they instilled the type of government the US wanted and the type of government that benefited the US.
ReplyDeleteSome reformers embraced empire because they equated it with progress, like Teddy Roosevelt did, particularly believing that spreading American civilization would bring progress in the world by civilizing and moralizing the rest of the world. There was also the race/biological argument: certain races were not biologically fit to be ruling themselves, so the United States had a paternal obligation to “watch over” them. Others argued against empire because of the force/violence associated with it—the proper way to spread democracy and civilization should not be through force, but through other venues. Social reformers particularly stressed that progress could be achieved through peaceful means rather than via empire building.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that American Progressivism and the push to spread moral democracy around the globe could succeed without force, simply because the United States wanted to control the way progress and democracy was achieved, as was the case with the Mexican Revolution. The United States had a desire for the world to progress, but to do so in an American way, so to ensure the progress was American, the U.S. needed to control the progress, which was easily achieved through military force. However, that being said, I don’t think that the spread of democracy/progress ever happened. For all of the U.S.’s determination to bring democracy to the world, it seems that the most it ever did was widen and emphasize the gap between the perceived superior and inferior peoples, which can be seen in the Panama Canal Zone’s gold and silver payrolls, and we also saw in the political development in the Philippines with the Federalista Party.
Some reformers embraced empire because Americans thrive to make everything American-led. For instance, Roosevelt was one of the reformers to embrace empire and he did so with the Roosevelt Corollary. With the Roosevelt Corollary in 1904 the United States were made the Police of Latin America. The Corollary states, “Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship.” With Roosevelt and the Roosevelt Corollary it just proves that America wanted to make other countries be like them, and figured that their ways were the “right way” for a country to be ran. Then when it comes to opposition one can look at President Wilson Disavows Territorial Conquest. President Wilson states, “I want to take this occasion to say that the United States will never again seek one additional foot of territory by conquest.” With President Wilson stating that it shows that he does not want imperialism as being the way to acquire land. Personally I believe that American Progressivism could spread moral democracy around the globe without aggressive foreign policy, because Americans tend to naturally want to make everything their way. American pride is engraved in every Americans mind since they were children. Americans could spread moral democracy around the globe just by going and visiting other places and helping out and teaching American customs and beliefs there. The reason I believe that moral democracy could have been spread without an aggressive foreign policy is when people would hear about the way that Americans were living, if they wanted to be that way they were not afraid to rebel and would have done so on their own.
ReplyDeleteTeddy Roosevelt and other leaders of the U.S. that we have talked about in the past few weeks embraced the role of empire, but not in that term. For Roosevelt, empire was the right of the United States to protect the sovereignty of the North American continent as dictated previously in the Monroe Doctrine. In his Corollary, Roosevelt argues that the United States is not conquering territory for its use. Rather, the U.S. is extending democracy and stability to those countries in North America. By taking these steps, the United States benefits monetarily, but it is not technically holding onto the land, aside from the cases like Panama and Guantanamo Bay. Progressivism split on the issue of empire, most likely because of the aggressive democracy tactics. As discussed in our last lecture, the Dollar Diplomacy of Taft did not work very well, and neither did the gunboat diplomacy or other forms of agressive tactics. It is not self-government or sovereign choice of government if the United States is involved militarily. By using surplus capital and money, the U.S. is creating short-term gains, but long-term instability in the regions it interacts with. Democracy can only be spread through education of a populations citizens. Money and armies are abominations of democracy. A plant cannot grow out of rock.
ReplyDeleteThe United States attempt to spread democracy across the globe was viewed by progressives as inherently good and moral. The progressive movement addressed all issues of the modern industrialized American society. These issues more or less dealt with the installation of American values in foreign lands that were less stable than the United States. The progressive movement began using any means necessary to spread American values, which ultimately furthered the use of empire in these regions, preferably the western hemisphere. The aggressive foreign policy of the progressive movement called for the use of military power to enforce these countries to adhere to American progressivism. The only way to assure progression in foreign countries was to exert military might of the US empire. The movement believed the people of a less stable country desired the American way, but were viewed as inferior to Americans because of their race. Progressives believed it was the "white man's burden" to help free and civilize the occupied people. Personally, I believe the exertion of military power was the only method for the progressive movement. To force the progress of foreign lands, at least what the US deemed progress, the US could ultimately instill democracy, but mainly protect economic interests in that particular country.
ReplyDeleteSome American progressives embraced Imperialism because they thought it was the only way to spread the inherently moral democratic form of government. However, the main motives behind empire building are not always well intentioned. The United States would not have held nearly as much interest in Latin American had there not been a possibility for American prosperity. Woodrow Wilson, as well as many of his staff, believed they had to deal with the "white man's burdon." This theory lead them to believe that countries like Panama, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Puerto Rico were incapable of self governance, thus providing precedent for American military involvement in the name of stability.
ReplyDeleteSo to answer the question, there were benefits and consequences of empire building. Sure the United States had a strong enough military to control its neighbors and force them into deals beneficial to the United States. These insurgencies would also spread democratic ideals throughout our hemisphere, but at what cost. The way Americans would go about empire building would drive countries away from our guidance and lead them to resentment. If we create democratic states that inherently hate us, then we may be opening the door for more problems down the road.
I think of of the main reason that many reformers embraced empire goes back to a key point that we have talked about a lot in class which are the feelings of white supremacism that were rampant throughout America. People who wanted America to not become filled up with all different races tended to oppose the idea of expanding the American empire. And those who didn't care tended not to worry about American imperialism. Big corporations were also for outsourcing to save money on labor and make a better product, where as smaller farmers and businesses tended to be against the spread of empire. I personally don't think that America could spread moral democracy successfully without an aggressive foreign policy because I feel some countries aren't gong to want to be like us. But if we can be aggressive enough to them and try to spread it around then there is a high chance of it succeeding.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, race played a large role in domestic opinions on foreign policy during this time. Paternalistic racism and "the White man's burden" were arguments used by some Progressives who favored imperialism. These people argued that American intervention created progress and economic development in so-called backwards nations. Roosevelt and Wilson, while very different characters, worked well together when it came to forcefully instilling democracy abroad. Both felt it was America's "mission civilatrice" to bring progress and both implemented a "Big Stick" foreign policy. Other Progressives, including suffragists, opposed war and imperialism because they saw it as a threat to social welfare.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, both an aggressive foreign policy and a soft one have their benefits and drawbacks. The motivations behind intervention abroad are important to consider. Paternal racism and material self-interest do not foster a friendly international environment, whereas using force for more legitimate political or economic reasons- for example, to break up an oppressive regime- is more justifiable. I also find it interesting and ironic that Americans, through exceptionalism, forcefully spread democracy, which is meant to foster equality, and then set up policies to make other countries inferior and dependent on American capital.
In Roosevelt's Corollary, he states, "...the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power" (Roosevelt, 1).
ReplyDeleteIt's truly shocking how explicitly Roosevelt uses the term "police power." It's surprising how quickly foreign policy transformed from Jefferson's "Empire of Liberty" to the Roosevelt Corollary and "gunboat diplomacy." I ardently disagree that American progressivism and this push to spread moral democracy can be attained by an aggressive foreign policy. Before even answering this question, it's already assuming that democracy works in all societies and that it should be exported to uplift humanity. I don't believe this is the case. Government's generally grow out of local traditions and beliefs; it's an almost organic process. To cut off or ignore the informal mores of a society is nothing but dogmatism. Before formal mechanisms of control, these informal beliefs maintained order. To disregard these cultural regulations and impose a foreign order does not work because it typically doesn't have popular belief. This is a fundamental flaw with American Progressivism; but this is also assuming Progressivism is purely a humanitarian concern. Typically when the U.S. builds democracy, it's never solely a humanitarian mission. There's always an agenda. This idea of international democracy is flawed, but I suppose it's easy to say that from a 21st century perspective. If international peace was a goal of the Progressives, an aggressive foreign policy was not the answer.
Progressivism's justification for empire stems most obviously (in my humble opinion) from the "prevailing Darwinian doctrines" (Dawley 80) of the early 1900's. These doctrines invoke ideas of "the white man's burden," encouraging racial uplift in the lesser-civilized countries. By asserting that the lesser-civilized peoples were incapable of self-governance through circular arguments, Dawley points out, U.S imperialism seemed to be a good thing by bringing order and government to those whom it actually harmed: chiefly, the Latin American workers who gained nothing from Dollar Diplomacy because of corrupt, pro-American puppets. It was already well-established that American society was superior, and thus its spread beyond American borders was a boon for the US; racial justification simply made it seem like a win-win situation for Latin Americans as well. Aggressive policies in Latin America, such as Wilson's use of the Marines on several occasions, seems to have been spurred on by Theodore Roosevelt's dominating ideas of manhood; prominently, his belief that the white man's superiority allowed him to stoop to the savage's level to fight and win a barbarous battle, and yet retain his white supremacy. Taking this into account, it becomes the main reason for the US' success in intervening in Latin America. Without overwhelming force, such intervention would not have been possible, pro-American regimes could not have been installed so quickly or effectively, and progressives' attention would have remained focused on domestic affairs.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delay, I completely forgot about the post (spring break disturbed me!).
ReplyDeleteThe better way to spread democracy according to some reformers was thanks to progressivism. Indeed, it was the better way to impose their moral democracy since the population was forced to listen and act according to their orders. Moreover it was successful since we can see how Cuba 'progress in stable and just civilization' declared one of them.
On the opposite, reformers argue against this means because it's not a peaceful way and the spread of democracy cannot be held thanks to war and domination of inferior populations. According to them, a means more based on equality is needed.
It is true that thanks to aggressive foreign policy it is easier to impose your values since you do not listen to the population's opinion and just impose your ideas to them. But as we can see with the example of Cuba; if we force a population to act according someone else's ideals, at one point they will look for the opposite of this policy, that is why Cuba turn itself toward communism. So I think a better way would be to try treaties or alliances first or at least show the benefices of this different policy by interventions or by other approaches of this type. But I have to be realistic few can be done thanks to speeches which abound of false statements, consequently violence and aggressive foreign policy is the most efficient.
When looking into empire building as inherently conflicting with the moral ideology of Progressives, I think it is important to emphasis the positives empire building provided Progressive reform. When we looked at the Philippines, the Progressives flocked to the islands as a way to test their ideology before bring it back home. Other countries, such as those in Latin America during the interwar period acted similarly to the Philippines. Only in this case, the moral emphasis was in providing stability in the region that could otherwise not have been reached without intervention. This also emphasized stability via economic reform, whereby providing banks that offered loans, they believed they were helping the Latin Americans.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the use of force to enact these initiatives, I think it was necessary. Pointing the "gun" at these countries forced them to embrace our banks and economic reform. Otherwise, they would have looked overseas to the Europeans who were expanding their markets internationally. In hind sight however, the use of gunboat diplomacy did eventually alienate many Latin Americans and brood contempt. Nobody wants to be forced to accept loans that create dependency, and it turned out being a driving force towards communism.
A reason for some to have embraced reform, is their belief in the necessity of spreading democracy across the world. As stated in the Corollary, a country which fails to keep order needs to be intervened with. Those countries on the Western Hemisphere are to receive police intervention from the United States. This spread of moral democracy would place the United States on a pedestal in relation to other countries. With Latin American's becoming a threat to the Unites States' political and economic stability in their revolutions, progressives believed that force was necessary. This was the golden opportunity for reformers to take advantage of those people who were incapable of self-governance and move forward with their ideals. However, those who disagreed with this approach were against the idea of an agressive foreign policy. This is because to them, it was too aggressive of an approach, and they wanted peace. Dawley mentioned, they were "anti-war pacifists that in result, latched on to a people's peace mission" which was their view on how to avoid spreading democracy in such a manner.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ashley about how Democracy is suppose to be about government run by the people. It can't be run by the people, if the people elected, are those in which the ones governed disapprove of. Pushing aggressively for democracy has a pro and a con. The pro being that, having an aggressive approach shows power and may provide respect out of fear. Whereas the con, other countries not in agreement that are also powerful can become angered by the situation creating greater conflict. Realistically, I believe that the risk of conflict is too great of risk for an aggressive foreign policy.
There are a few reasons that Americans embraced empire building, one reason being to spread democracy another for investment, and according to Dawley because of racism. When you really break down these three thoughts behind empire building they really go hand and hand, Americans see themselves as a superior country and that it is their job to spread democracy around the world. With that being said, Americans also see themselves as an elite race and that is their job to civilize and "help" races that our beneath Americans. Lastly, if there was no economic interest in Latin America, would America really have cared so much...most likely NO. One difference I see between the two sides (those who supported reform and those who did not) is the question of are using aggressive foreign policies really the best way to handle the situation. People like Roosevelt obviously thought that it was necessary to have a military there to enforce the policy. While I wish a less aggressive strategy would have been enforced, I actually believe that handling it more aggressively worked more efficiently. On the other hand, others may have wanted to spread democracy in a more peaceful way.
ReplyDelete