This paper evaluates Dennis Merrill's argument that American foreign policy has been driven not primarily by material interests or self-defense, but by a shared national ideology rooted in a sense of mission, racial hierarchy, and hostility toward revolutionary movements. The paper contrasts Merrill's framework with conventional explanations found in mainstream foreign policy scholarship and tests his thesis against a concrete historical case: the United States' covert intervention in British Guiana between 1953 and 1969, as documented by Stephen G. Rabe. The British Guiana case illustrates how racial bias against Marxist leader Cheddi Jagan, an ethnic Indian, may have shaped Cold War decision-making beyond simple anticommunist strategy.
The paper demonstrates thesis testing through case study: it introduces a theoretical claim, maps out its components, identifies points of scholarly tension, and then applies the theory to a specific historical event to evaluate its validity. This structure is common in undergraduate history and political science writing and teaches students how to move from abstract argument to concrete evidence.
The essay opens by introducing Merrill's overarching ideology thesis, then breaks it into three sub-components. It next acknowledges the conventional counter-explanation before pivoting to the British Guiana case, which occupies the second half of the paper. The case is developed in stages — background, U.S. motivations, CIA actions, and consequences — before a brief conclusion. This funnel structure (theory → components → counter → case evidence) is well suited to short analytical essays.
In his book, Dennis Merrill reinterprets the history of United States foreign policy decisions through the lens of a distinctly American ideology. According to Merrill, a central ideology has driven and shaped American foreign policy since the nation's founding, including its decision to enter the Revolutionary War. This driving ideology is rooted in a general conception of the country as having a national mission to fulfill for the world. Furthermore, this ideology has grown to encompass racial classifications of other peoples and a general hostility toward social revolutionary movements.
Merrill's ideas on foreign policy development are unique in that, unlike most theories, he argues that an American Way drives the nation's diplomatic decisions. The majority of studies and works published on this topic — such as those found in the anthology Major Problems in American Foreign Relations, Volume II — have explained the United States' approach to the world through concepts of material interests or matters of self-defense. However, when reading and studying both frameworks, it becomes clear that Merrill makes a compelling argument that ideology, not just interest, is at the heart of American statecraft.
According to Merrill's theory, all American foreign policy decisions have been shaped by a shared ideology that can be broken down into three basic components. First, there is the general consensus around America's vision of national greatness. Second, there is the American tendency to view the world's diverse populations through a race- or culture-based hierarchy. Third and finally, there is a general feeling of both disappointment and alarm associated with the failed revolutions that occurred around the world during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Merrill's argument that United States foreign policy is driven by racial classifications and reactions to failed revolutions is a more difficult argument to accept at first glance. Although much of America's foreign policy — including its diplomatic and military interventions — has been aimed at non-white, undemocratic, and politically unstable societies, the question remains whether these actions are based on race, culture, and ideology, as Merrill suggests, or on the more conventional explanations of pursuing material and national security interests.
Nevertheless, history offers examples that tend to support the view that United States foreign policy has at times been driven by racism and gender bias. One such example comes from the Cold War situation in British Guiana. In his book U.S. Intervention in British Guiana: A Cold War Story, author Stephen G. Rabe documents a massive United States covert intervention that took place between 1953 and 1969. It is Rabe's contention that the foundation of this covert intervention was rooted in gender bias and racism on the part of the United States government.
According to Rabe, the reason for the United States' involvement was a general racism against Jagan. Jagan was an ethnic Indian who had been educated at Howard University in Washington, D.C. The United States feared the rise of such a powerful non-white leader in a country within its own hemisphere. This case illustrates the broader point that Merrill advances: that racial ideology and a sense of national mission have shaped American foreign policy decisions in ways that purely material or strategic explanations cannot fully account for.
You’re 70% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.