American Arrogance

When Theodore Roosevelt came to power, the United States was a young country teetering on the brink of economic explosion. The foreign policy of the time, and throughout the country’s history to that point, was one of isolationism and foreign restraint (U.S. History, 1). However, Roosevelt saw this policy as obsolete and championed the idea of the United States as world police and protectors of democracy abroad. This policy revolutionized the country’s foreign outlook as most presidents had maintained the policies set forth in George Washington’s farewell address. As the country grew, so too did its foreign ambitions. The country began to involve itself in matters that would have been previously viewed as beyond American jurisdiction, whether it was in Central America or the West Pacific. Roosevelt had turned the page on Washington and begun the new age of imperialism. Throughout the century, and into the next, this policy extenuated itself across the globe. Foreign interventions cost the United States unnecessary lives and money while creating a precedent that is impossible to maintain. The United States foreign policy of world police is a presumption that has and will harm the country domestically while reinforcing the international image of America as arrogant.
American Exceptionalism is the idea behind modern policy and causes the United States to view their perspective as permanently supreme, and to feel the necessity to spread the idea across the globe. America is a country built by white Anglo-Saxons and for a while ruled solely by them. They enforced the idea, sometimes through legislation, of whites being supreme. This helped to build a sense of entitlement that would later come to play in foreign policy, specifically in nations with Latino or dark skinned backgrounds, such as Cuba. It breeds a sense of jingoism as it is self serving and hypocritical. By proclaiming one type of people inherently better than another it excuses the abuse of that seemingly inferior group. This entitled belief was put into law by two policies which became pillars of United States foreign policy; the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary. The Monroe Doctrine was passed after the War of 1812 and was used as means to assert United States power by threatening retaliation (Caridi, 50). It was originally interpreted as basic and was viewed as a self defense measure rather than an aggressive document with imperialistic underpinnings. Under the Polk administration, the meaning and functionality of the document changed in a way that would shape its usage in modern United States policy. When Britain attempted to seize control of the Yucatan peninsula Polk added a corollary, “it should be distinctly announced to the world as our settled policy that no future European colony or dominion shall with our consent be planted or established on any part of the North American continent.” (Caridi, 43). This policy essentially gave the United States territorial jurisdiction over the entire hemisphere and gave them the right to deny treaties to be made between two independent countries. This policy encouraged foreign interventionism and laid the foundation for further manifestation of the belief.
The Roosevelt Corollary was an extension of the Monroe Doctrine and served to further entitle the United State’s foreign outlook. Theodore Roosevelt was a very powerful man who believed in stern advancement of United States interests above all. He saw Central and Southern America as inferior enclaves loaded with resources vital to continued American growth both militarily and economically. The Roosevelt Corollary established the precedent that the United States had the right to intervene in Latin American governments if they felt that the government was not functioning correctly. This gave Roosevelt, and all subsequent presidents, the right to seize control of any Latin American country if their actions displeased them (Caridi, 50-51). Feeling that the United States has the right to control foreign independent countries is the exactly type of entitlement that has led to such an intrusive and overbearing policy.
Unilateral preventative foreign military invasions are both internationally pretentious and economically draining. After the end of World War II, with the previous superpowers laden with debt and economic deficiency, America took its place as leader of the free world. It moved to create an international regulatory body which is referred to as the U.N. or the United Nations. This body was supposed to move with global support against countries, such as Nazi Germany, that were out of line and posed a systemic threat to the surrounding countries and overall world peace. Although this body sounds good in theory, it has many flaws that contribute to its failure to operate effectively. One of the problems, which were especially prevalent during the cold war era, is that enemies, such as Russia, have the power to block measures against each other which essentially makes them immune to international law. This meant that oftentimes the United States would be forced to move unilaterally to fight a battle that should be handled by the appropriate United Nations body. Although the United Nations did help out during the Korean War, it was essentially an American war as 90% of the troops involved were American and the lead United Nations general was also American. After the war much of the economic responsibility for the region fell onto the United States as the world looked to the new superpower to fill the role. By accepting the responsibility and spearheading the organization of the new South Korea the United States established the precedent that would guide foreign expectations from that point forward. The United States was now officially seen as the nation oppressed people could turn to. This was backed up by the Truman Doctrine which stated that the United States would provide support to any nation threatened by communism (Bundy, 231). Providing aid at the level necessary to maintain that policy is taxing on the American domestic economy. Policies such as Truman’s began stretching United States resources across the globe even when it was not a direct threat to homeland security.
The wars in Vietnam and Iraq furthered the broken policy while turning vital global support against the United States. When the United States decided to militarily commit to the conflict in Vietnam it began a war that drained both the public’s and world’s appetite for global regulation. The world began to see America as an arrogant nation willing to sacrifice innocent Vietnamese lives along with young American solders for a cause that could hardly be declared as an imminent threat. It was viewed rather as a cold, calculated move that blatantly disrespected the lives of the people fighting the war. Roughly 30 years later a different president, George W. Bush, decided to dive into another foreign entanglement without weighing the long term ramifications. This reinforced the global view of the United States as both arrogant and ignorant. Although some may ask why Americans should care about foreign attitude towards their policies, the reasons are important. In the modern technological age the United States has shifted into a consumer economy which is almost entirely dependent on importing and exporting goods. Maintaining a good relationship with a foreign trade partner allows for reciprocal trade agreements and lower tariff rates which equal more return to American businesses. Overall entanglements, such as Iraq, do very little to achieve the set goal and end up having more severe effects on the United States.
Massive global intervention leads to military overextension and domestic neglect. Throughout United States history politicians have been forced to choose between military action and their domestic agendas. This debacle is always a tough decision for a leader to make as shipping out money to fight overseas is sometimes necessary, such as during World War II, and domestic sacrifice is necessary. Although this is the case some of the time it is hardly a regular occurrence. Most modern decisions are between practical domestic programs, which can be anything from a higher education budget or providing the public with larger tax cuts. Today the United spends roughly four percent of its (GNP) or gross national product on defense (Rourke, 56). For a country with such a high overall GNP that is a lot of money that goes toward causes that could have been avoided. For example, during the late 1960’s President Lyndon Johnson was working towards the legislation for his “Great Society”. He saw the country in a state of decay and wanted to invest in domestic infrastructure in order to revitalize the country. Many people disagreed on the details of his polices but both sides recognized that his plan involved keeping U.S. money within the country. After committing to Vietnam, Johnson was forced to sacrifice many of his programs in order to feed the bottomless stomach of the army. He was also forced to send tax dollars abroad which weakens the country and decreases the value the taxpayers were getting for their dollar. Presidents who try to accomplish both domestic plans, and carry out a foreign agenda suffer severe ramifications. This was done during the Reagan era when the federal government put trillions into National Defense while executing massive tax cuts. This lead to a tripling of the national deficit and added a greater strain to the country’s economy (Z- Facts, 1). The issue of committing domestic money abroad is one that is vital to opposing modern foreign policy and is hotly contested.
The standing of the United States is being threatened by irresponsible and arrogant foreign policy. The country is placing itself above international law which is tarnishing its image in the eyes of the world. Once considered a beacon of hope and prosperity, America is turning into a country that legislates morality across the globe. In order to regain the respect and admiration, while preserving the country’s economic standing, America must make sacrifices and learn to end its hypocritical policies and respect other nation’s dilemmas. Although every nation is expected to protect its own interests, the way for the United States to do that is through restricting foreign intervention, not increasing it. This will allow for money to stay within the country and alleviate the world’s burdens from the shoulder of the American taxpayer. The U.N. must be fixed in order to ensure that international law can be enforced without constant United States intervention. This will lead to a prosperous domestic society while allowing the United States to focus its resources on the people living within its borders.