Strong interventionist and anti-participationist positions across the country

¶ … United States foreign policy in terms of the concepts of isolationism and interventionism.

The time period covered in this research paper begins immediately after World War I until current foreign policies employed by the Bush administration.

Immediately after World War I, the United States emerged as the increasingly dominant world economy. For Woodrow Wilson, this economic dominant meant that the United States had every right to act as the sole policeman of the Western Hemisphere. Wilson argued that the United States had to shed its previous isolationist policies, where participation in international affairs was avoided. The United States therefore began its interventionist policies, and aggressively worked to expand its "zone of influence" and enhance American interests abroad.

This policy was based on Teddy Roosevelt's "big stick" foreign policy, which grew out of the Monroe Doctrine. While the Monroe Doctrine was originally intended to prevent intervention by European powers, Roosevelt's application used the same Doctrine to justify aggressive intervention by the United States. In his 1904 address to Congress, President Theodore Roosevelt codified his foreign policy, claiming that "the United States (had) the right to act unilaterally and, if necessary, preemptively, to maintain order in the Western Hemisphere."

The interventionist policy was characterized by a paternalistic attitude towards its colonies. Interventionism was also largely an offshoot of President Monroe's Manifest Destiny, in terms of its emphasis on expansionism. This emphasis therefore made the American government naturally antagonistic to any anti-colonial efforts and similar movements for self-determination.

These interventionist policies were very much in evidence at President Woodrow Wilson's decision to enter World War I. Opponents argued that this was not an American war, and the issues were internal to Europe. However, the "hawks" who defended interventionist policies countered that American interests would be harmed should non-allies gain ascendancy in Europe.

This does not mean, however, that United States foreign policy in the first half of the 20th century centered solely around force, suppression and punishment. While former imperialist powers recognized the growing might of the United States, its "big stick" policies" also resulted in growing discontent among its protectorates and possessions. The 1920s and 1930s saw sporadic anti-colonial uprisings, and sentiments against the imperialist powers soured considerably. The United States was seen as an imperialist power, intervening in the internal issues of sovereign states.

By 1928, Herbert Hoover and Democratic Party leader Franklin D. Roosevelt envisioned a new form of foreign policy. In their view, by securing "the cooperation of others (the United States) shall have more order in this hemisphere and less dislike" (Franklin Roosevelt, qtd in Barry et al. 2005). Instead of economic and military interventionism, the new American leadership proposed relations based on commerce and, more importantly, diplomacy. The United States would therefore keep interventionism at a minimum.

Because it was based on a keen common sense and core values, FDR's vision came to be known as the "good neighbor" foreign policy. Together with his wife Eleanor, FDR drew up the blueprints for a system based on "common ideals and a community of interest, together with a spirit of cooperation." Rather than seeing other nations as means to promote American interests, FDR believed that American well-being depended heavily on the well-being of its satellite countries as well. This was a direct contrast to the paternalistic attitude that characterized interventionism.

As a result of these non-interventionist policies, FDR was able to build much more goodwill. Thus, by World War II, many Western nations threw their support behind the Allies. In contrast to the interventionist stance of "big stick" policies, FDR reduced the influence of direct U.S. rule and promoted self-determination. These self-determination polices extended beyond the western hemisphere, as FDR supported Philippine independence in 1946

Both interventionism and isolationism are products of their times, as can be seen in their different attitudes towards protectorates and other newly-independent countries. moved away from the supposed God-given mandate to establish dominion over other societies, supposedly based on American superiority. The subtle rhetoric worked, and FDR gained the region's trust -- a factor that had eluded interventionists.