Many presidents of the United States of America have constructed doctrines during their terms in office that have come to define their foreign policy aims, from James Monroe in 1823 right up until the very recent Bush Doctrine. This essay will focus on three of these doctrines, namely the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, the Truman Doctrine of 1947 and the Reagan Doctrine of 1984. Although there are many other presidential doctrines in the history of American foreign policy, several of these, such as Polk’s doctrine in 1845 and the Eisenhower Doctrine of 1957, appear to simply be reiterations of previous presidential doctrines. We will see that, although rhetoric is used quite freely in the president’s announcements of their doctrines, it would be wide of the mark to argue that the doctrines themselves are merely rhetoric. Instead should become clear that the doctrines shaped American foreign policy not only during the doctrine’s author’s term in office, but also for many of his successors.…
Robert Jensen’s Citizens of the Empire is a warning. It is a message to the citizens of the world’s “greatest” nation and a remedy, as he describes, “to despair over the future of democracy.” In the manifesto, Jensen focuses on the political actions following the terror attacks of 9/11 and questions why it is hard for the American public to challenge the acts done in the name of freedom, the corrupt political culture, and the failure of universities to promote citizens who are politically active and critical. He also proposes that ideas of national superiority and binding respect for military servitude are dangerous political frameworks. To make his point, Jensen uses devices including personal experiences, quotes from political commentators…
Peterson, Paul. 1994. The President, the Congress, and the Making of Foreign Policy. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.…
The election of 1980 marked a ‘new political era’ that was ushered in by President Reagan and that followed on through the presidencies of George H. W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton. These presidents were inaugurated at different times and succeeded the successes and the failures of their predecessors. Having came from different political backgrounds and having unique political and social beliefs, Bush, Reagan, and Clinton can only be analyzed through their foreign policies, domestic policies, achievements as well as shortcomings, and legacies.…
President Joseph Jobrani’s numbers had been sliding in the polls for a second consecutive year. He had to do something to stop his increasing unpopularity. After the glory of winning a historic and improbable election, things had gone south. Not only was Joseph Jobrani the first president of Middle Eastern descent, no one outside of his friends foresaw him beating a very powerful superdelegate from Missouri with very powerful friends no less. He had to fight an up-hill battle from the beginning of his presidency. The disaster of the previous administration had put the country on the brink of an economic collapse thanks to unnecessary wars. According to the experts, the wars had accrued a high debt and in effect, had divided America in…
Thinking about the future of humankind and the basis of political association in the early years of the twenty-first century does not give grounds for optimism. In particular, 9/11 has become a moment associated with a return to empire, geopolitics, political violence and the primacy of sovereignty. Yet, it is easy to overstate the meaning of 9/11 and exaggerate from one set of historical experiences. In general, in International Politics there are a number of terms that are highly controversial.…
A major debate that is being discussed both domestically and internationally is the involvement of the United States of America in international affairs. This debate includes the practicality of where the United States has intervened in foreign affairs, its right to intervene in the first place considering past mistakes and questionable leadership, and whether or not that foreign involvement is in the general public’s best interest. Obviously, the two sides of the debate refer to the ‘yes’ position, explained by Ivan Eland (as in yes, the United States should limit it’s global involvement) and also the ‘no’ position, backed by President Barack Obama (as in no, the United States should not limit it’s foreign involvement). Eland’s basis for his argument is that the United States has habitually overspent it’s treasure and overextended it’s military power to a point where we cannot keep pace economically and which could bring upon the demise of the American government as we know it. He also points out that continued foreign endeavors increases the risk of the United States being a target for terrorist attack. Obama’s vision is that The United States of America needs to re-establish its place as a world leader by maintaining an active foreign policy. Obama admits that mistakes have been made where international affairs are concerned, but that is a reason to fix those mistakes and step up as a suitable leader once more. Discussed later in the paper is my own point of view, which supports President Barack Obama and his plan for active engagement in foreign affairs, in a conservative and confidant manner.…
In “Big Ideas, Big Problems” written by Stefan Halper, Halper discusses the two issues, Big Ideas and constant media, that negatively affect U.S policies and its public. Advertised sloganeering along with America’s susceptibility to overly cumbersome political movements is the root of the problems that push citizens to feel patriotic in a negative and irrational way. Halper goes on to discuss the issues that continuously arise from each major world crisis by stating “each has suffered [from] … ill-conceived policy responses.” This lack of understating of foreign policies leads to citizens blowing things out of proportion and making simple ideas Big Ideas that are perceived as threats in comparison to American policies. During the Cold War,…
Johnson, Loch K., Kiki Caruson. 2003. The Seven Sins of American Foreign Policy. PS Online, (January), http://www.aspanet.org.…
Hunt , Michael H.. Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.…
Reading this book taught me a lot more than what I was expecting. I was expecting it to be a boring hard to read book, but it honesty grasped my attention. I like the fact that Farber talked about all the events that lead to the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Yes we had already learned quite a bit about it in the research we had to do for the Thursday Topics, but they were not all clear and detailed as the book. For a fact I learned that President Nixon and his key advisor Henry Kissinger tried to replace the simple anti-communism. They tried to do so by using a more pragmatic realpolitik. His realpolitik approach was being attacked by Dixon's Democratic opponent in the 1972 election, senator George McGovern. McGovern attacked Nixon's approach by saying, "Our children look at us for moral guidance-for Americans true ideals. But we protect the prestige of warmonger. And we pay with the soul of our nation" (17). The CIA at Nixon's bidding was engaged in many illegalities in the United States and they helped overthrow the legally elected Chilean government. Operations like these (realpolitik and CIA revelations) left many Americans to question the role of the United States in the world. Although Americas uncertain role in the world, Americans were more worried about the economic issues during that time. The larger crisis in America was that many people expected the economy to do better annually, a dream that seemed to be crushed for many Americans. In the 1970s, the…
Working side by side in the White House, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger were two of the most compelling, contradictory, and powerful figures in America in the second half of the twentieth century. While their personalities could hardly have seemed more different, both were largely self-made men, brimming with ambition, driven by their own inner demons, and often ruthless in pursuit of their goals. Tapping into a wealth of recently declassified documents and tapes, Robert Dallek uncovers fascinating details about Nixon and Kissinger’s tumultuous personal relationship—their collaboration and rivalry—and the extent to which they struggled to outdo each other in the reach for foreign policy achievements. He also brilliantly analyzes their dealings with power brokers at home and abroad—including the nightmare of Vietnam, the brilliant opening to China, détente with the Soviet Union, the Yom Kippur War in the Middle East, the disastrous overthrow of Allende in Chile, and growing tensions between India and Pakistan—while recognizing how both men were continually plotting to distract the American public’s attention from the growing scandal of Watergate. Authoritative, illuminating, and deeply engrossing, Nixon and Kissinger provide a startling new portrait and a new understanding of the immense power and sway these two men held in affecting world history.…
I intend to review “The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War: Neoconservatives vs. Realists” by Brian C. Schmidt and Michael C. Williams. The reason for choosing this article for review is simply because of its relevance today throughout the Middle East and how the American foreign policy is drastically changing the dynamics of the world.…
In the political history of the United States, the Presidential Doctrines hold an important position. Presidential Doctrine can be defined as a set of principles or practices applied by a President to a particular situation, region, or government, and a President may formulate a doctrine alone or with the help of advisers within the entire administration (Jones, 2013). According to the Monroe Doctrine to the Reagan Doctrine, in the realm of the U.S. politics and foreign affairs, presidential doctrines have played a pivotal role, and if studied from the perspective of the Cold War, the importance of the Reagan Doctrine can be ascertained. The presidential doctrine of Reagan which is popularly known as the Reagan Doctrine played a significant role in decreasing the global influence of the Soviet Union. In the course of the Cold War but it also played a crucial role in shaping the long term foreign policies of the United States in a tumultuous manner primarily because of its role in supporting the anti-Sandinista rebels (called “Contras”) and for eventually instigating the U.S. – Iran conflict, and it is due to such a roles that even today the Reagan Doctrine is considered strategically an important political approach. The Soviet regime provided a chance for Reagan to formulate a doctrine which will be able to strengthen the motivation of these rebels and eventually bring an end to the Soviet According to historians and political strategists they have often identified the Reagan Doctrine as a “strategy orchestrated and implemented by the United States under the Reagan Administration to oppose the global influence of the Soviet Union during the final years of the Cold War” (“Reagan Doctrine”, n.d.). And it is due to its importance in respect of U.S. foreign policy that despite of the doctrine’s duration being less than a decade, it remained as “the centerpiece of United States foreign policy from the…
In a nation divided by war in 1969, Richard Nixon delivered a speech with the hope that it would bring Americans together. At this time the American people stood divided on their views on the war. Many people wanted to withdraw from the war and many people supported the war in the quest for peace. The Vietnam War had already been going on for quite some time when Nixon came into office. Nixon was the second youngest president; he came to office in 1969 as the 37th president of the United States. (Sheppard) The goal of his speech was to unite the nation as he pursued the war and to try to win peace. Americans were divided among going to war and ending the war for peace. The tone of the speech, use of questions, and the use of anecdotes along with other rhetorical appeals such as facts, ethos, and pathos make this speech effective in persuading the audience in his quest for freedom in Vietnam.…
