Thinking about the name “ideology”, it is difficult to come up with a definition. The concept of ideology seems to encompass so many ideas; not easy to narrow down. Michael H. Hunt defines ideology as “a coherent set of beliefs or assumptions that reduces the complexities of a particular segment of reality so that the terms are easily understood and suggests appropriate ways of dealing with that reality” (Hunt, pg xi). Hunting is a broad definition that seems to apply to many aspects of life. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary provides a slightly more precise definition of ideology: “assertions, theories, and goals that constitute a political, social, and economic system.”
Ideology, even simpler, is a complicated business. Moreover, it is more difficult to define the relationship between doctrine and foreign policy. Hunt believes that historians have the unenviable task of exploring the elements of ideology and its connection to foreign policy. Too often it feels, they admit, that the artists are affected by the ideology, but they do not discern what it actually does in the ideology itself. I believe that historians do not introduce the part of reason into the core of the reasons behind ideology, because it is an abstract concept. It is simpler to look at tangible reasons in relation to external policy decisions. Historians can also deal with their own personal doctrines, and it is difficult to distinguish their own ideologies and perceptions from those of others.
In his analysis, Hunt lays out what he believes are three driving forces behind ideology as it pertains to US foreign policy. The first ideological component defined by Hunt is the vision of national greatness (and this is the concept of freedom). Second, Hunt believes that US foreign policy is driven by race ideology. Americans consider other people in relation to the so-called racial hierarchy. Finally, Hunt examines the ideology associated with revolutions throughout history. Hunt, feels that these three core elements of the context form the basis of ideology in relation to foreign policy decisions.
The first ideological core of the hunting concept is a vision of American national greatness. He begins chapter two with a quote from Thomas Paine: “We have it in our power to start the world anew” (Hunt, pg. 19). When the Americans came to this land, they had new maps. They had the opportunity to shape the world (or at least part of it). They all made other decisions that were typical of American policy, both foreign and domestic. Freedom plays an important role in studies of national size.
Thomas Jefferson represents freedom and national magnificence. He believes that by separating from England, America can better protect its liberties. He also feels that by securing more borders, American liberties will be increased and protected. It allows the protection of American liberties to preserve American life. Jefferson’s preferred view of American life is an agrarian way of life. He felt that the more space we had, the more agriculture could be carried on, and the richer the dignity, the more rural citizens would be. Jefferson’s view of the blocking of liberty and national greatness in the Louisiana Purchase is clear. The conquest of this land had many ramifications. First, he showed that through negotiation he could get anything he wanted, Unit. this case, the Seine. Second, we expanded our freedoms across the continent. Finally, we will achieve national magnanimity in order to gain more and more territory, power, and influence in the Western Hemisphere.
Alexander Hamilton felt differently than Jefferson about how to achieve national greatness. Hamilton believed that the United States would win national greatness at the time. The country needs to be defended by a “strong national government” (Hunt, pg. 24) and a strong navy. The United States must have a strong economic system and a good relationship with Britain in order to play a role on the world stage . Hamilton cared less about the concept of liberty than Jefferson.
However, Jefferson bought the land, and his idea that white Americans would one day populate the continent went against the ideals of the race. governed by liberty. But, did Jefferson want the nation to focus on the true possibility of freedom? Could the United States be a symbol of freedom throughout the world, when its own government was seen to be driven by greed for prosperity and power? Many of his actions as President were more severe than he intended; Some believed that he did not have the authority to make decisions (like the residents of the Louisiana Territory) but he did it anyway.
One of the most powerful ideological ideas for national greatness was the idea of a fatal manifesto. Many believed that the mission of the United States was to spread freedom (through territorial expansion) and be an example to the world. They felt that the United States should be a “city on a hill”, representing God and the right way to live, like the rest of the world he would look to direct them. The fatal idea was manifest that God had given the white Americans here to cultivate and populate the continent. We are predestined by God as a country built on independence and rising to national greatness through territorial expansion. In our struggle for a great country, freedom and other ideals are often betrayed. It was used not only by us, but by foreigners to increase our dignity.
Hunt’s next ideological concept in relation to American history is a foreign policy type. From the beginning of the country, Americans have treated others having a different color of their skin. A hierarchy of race existed in the minds of our leaders, and this was the driving force behind our plans. It was basically assumed that some races were better than others at all levels.
By seeing other nations as our inferiors we could justify the treatment of people. All the actions we took against the darker, cunning people could be seen as welcome. The black people were less intelligent than us, so they couldn’t do anything, even running their own country. When the Americans came to this country, it was not a vast and empty wilderness. Here were the people, the American Indians. They had a standard way of life, a system of tribes and tribal governments. White Americans have systematically worked to destroy Indian culture to acquire land and so-called national greatness. You made wars with the Indians, broke treaties, and brought our diseases and dangerous ways of life. them Hunt states, “White Americans did not accept the myths of an empty continent. But they emptied it with their presence and policies” (pg. 53). We could not assimilate those Indians, we executed them. We push them into exceptions. We took their land as our own. And all this was justified, because they were lower in the hierarchy of the race.
We continued to look at the world through a graphically tinted spyglass. The purpose of the white journey allowed us to assume the fatherly role in other regions. While we believed in their self-determination, we felt that the nation was a dark-skinned man incapable of running a government. In the Philippines, we wanted to help our “brown brothers” to become more humane and able to function in today’s world (Hunt, pg. 81). We felt that we had no choice but to occupy the country until the day, if ever, that they could be responsible for their affairs.
Easterners were also victims of the American race. The Chinese were seen as “the meanest, meanest, thieving people in the world” (Hunt, pg. 69). Immigrants to America took away hard working, deserving Americans. American policy seeking to control the flow of Orientals to the United, sought to exclude these groups. about his arrival in the village.
Americans typically had two beliefs about people of other nations. Prospects in good things, and negative, when the people were restless and idle. One example Hunt gives is Latin Americans. Many Americans have a perception that Latinos have negative feelings toward Hispanics. Americans feared that white Spaniards had interracial relationships with Indians and blacks to “degenerate mixed offspring” (Hunt, pg. 59). The negative American view of Latinos expressed them as “superstitious, obstinate, cowardly, unwary…” and on and on (Hunt, pg. 59). This stereotype is typically applied to Latino men. On the other hand, Latin women are often portrayed as helpless victims who needed to be saved in their homeland from wild Latin men. Different opinions allowed Americans to see the people in the state.
Seeing their friends as superior, they allowed themselves to receive ill treatment from inferior races. The Americans preferred to develop their protectorate activities in other countries, as they only helped the people they cultured. They were only doing their duty as a white to help the lesser people. They remained in the faith of the race. in order to feel the higher, they had to base it from the lower. Skin color was the easiest and most obvious feature to distinguish against. It gave American leaders peace of mind that their warlike foreign policy actions could be justified in other countries.
The ultimate goal is the ideological concept of revolution. Americans support revolutions within themselves. Our country was born with new things, and we were proud of the achievements of a young nation. We felt that the road to liberty and freedom was paved with new ideals. To achieve freedom, “the common man had no choice but to make any sacrifice, to overcome that resistance and bring an end to oppression” (Hunt, pp. 94-95). Our first leaders felt that revolution was a natural process in obtaining a government that promoted national independence and greatness. If the leaders of the country did not do what was necessary to allow their country to be in dignity and honor around the world, revolutions were expected.
However, when the Americans realized how many revolutions were involved throughout the world, they were surprised. The French Revolution, initially viewed as the overthrow of the monarchy, soon became a violent struggle for many Americans. offended, a. The American way of thinking is what it is. The idea is why to fight, how to fight, and what is the outcome. When the revolutions do not conform to our standards, Americans are deceived.
The Americans, who fought successfully for the new things and won their freedom, felt that they had the courage to liberate people around the world. America was “inviting the oppressed nations of the earth to do as we have done and to be as prosperous and happy as we are” (Hunt, pg. 102). Immigrants often came to America when revolutions in oppressed countries were less successful. The Americans managed to burden themselves with “round seeds” in their own country in the United. To prevent revolutionary activities in our country, American leaders restrict immigration and closely monitor those who may incite reactionary ideas.
American foreign policy began to change from passive to active. Whereas before, the United States could only grant diplomatic recognition, offer asylum or conversions, now they were. they were drawn into more active roles (Hunt, pg. 107). In the Philippines, “U.S. interests and protections” were “at odds with ‘native’ demand for freedom and independence” (Hunt, pg. 107). Our policy around world revolutions began to focus more on supporting American interests and American liberties than on new nations. We wanted to compromise foreign countries freedom and independence to protect our interests. Our plan is to protect other nations in the western part of the world. Roosevelt’s corollary Monroe-doctrine established an international police force that would intervene in Latin American nations to protect Europe. e (so as to protect our interests).
The policy makers believed that our cultural superiority had the right to decide what new things and events would be “successful”. We could judge other nations because we were of a better race and behaved well and successfully. Policies made to deal with revolutions around the world also had domestic ramifications. American leaders wanted to prevent the planting of seeds in America. Their plans reflect this and have worked to make so much wealth outside of the United States.
In the sixth chapter, Hunt discusses the “contemporary dilemma” in United foreign policy. He tells us that every decision we make from the beginning has been prioritized over the decisions of our current leaders. Hunt says, “Doctrines that have been tested, cultivated, and woven into the fabric of national consciousness have helped propel twentieth-century U.S. foreign policy into a complex
