Precisely because it is not clear and directed against a named aggressor it does not have the strength to create a major change in our foreign policy. The speech should rather be analyzed as a sign of where our security policy is headed than as a clear statement of foreign policy. Perhaps the President's speech could have had a bigger impact if the aggressors were named. It is clear that Japan, Italy and Germany can be portrayed as aggressors, but the Chicago speech does not identify any country. From this it is simple to draw the conclusion that this is the first step towards taking measures against aggressors. The quarantine of the aggressor nations represents an alternative for America's current foreign policy and the president showed support for forming alliances against aggressive nations. The Chicago speech marks the change of direction in American...

The greatest challenge against this change of policy will be the public opinion, as the quarantine speech already caused protests from isolationism supporters.
President Roosevelt's quarantine of the aggressor speech should be seen as defining the future foreign policy of our country, but it is only the first step out of many to be made.

Bibliography

Roosevelt, Franklin D., Quarantine the Aggressor, October 5, 1937, available at http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/roosevelt_franklin/quarantine.html;

Quarantine Speech, available at http://www.answers.com/topic/quarantine-speech;

Reactions to Roosevelt, October 18, 1937, available at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,758266-1,00.html.