The arrogance of power is an insightful read for those who wish to put today 's global events in perspective. Although it was originally written in 1966 and may be considered dated, Fulbright’s eloquently written arguments are timeless and are important sources to help us gain a greater comprehension of what makes what Fulbright would consider a wise and strategic foreign policy. This book would be of great assistance in developing an objective view of American foreign policies as seen from abroad. The author defines the “arrogance of power” the following way: Power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is particularly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God’s favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations–to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining …show more content…
It should be embittering to see how his warning about the consequences of going on a pre-emptive war has been proven correct in more recent history. Senator Fulbright asserts that it is impossible to have a healthy and fully-functioning domestic policy when war becomes the main agenda in American foreign policy. Fulbright himself had once said that, “Maturity requires a final accommodation between our aspirations and our limitations.” Although The Arrogance of Power can seem slightly pedantic to readers at times, it seems that Fulbright, in the midst of a storm of controversy during his time, wants to convey his idea in more detail to persuade Americans to believe that he is a reasonable man, and his foreign policy approach would serve the interest of the people of the United States better. We have to take into consideration that it was written by a Democratic senator at a time when a Democratic President and Congress were incessantly pursuing the Vietnam
Steven Hook and John Spanier's 2012 book titled “American foreign policy since WWII" serves as one of the most important texts that can be used in understanding the underlying complexities on American foreign policies. Like the first readings that are analyzed in class (American Diplomacy by George Kennan and Surprise, Security, and the American Experience by John Lewis Gaddis), this text also brings history into a more understandable context. Aside from being informative and concise in its historical approach, Hook and Spanier also critiques the several flaws and perspectives that occurred in the American foreign policy history since World War II.
The Monroe Doctrine reflected the concerns and ambitions of a fledgling nation that was brave enough to declare its sovereignty on the world stage. The Doctrine, in stating that European powers ought not to intervene in America’s affairs, established the US as a world power, although one that had inadequate, hemispheric aspirations. However, these aspirations would extend, and in future years the Doctrine would substantiate its usefulness for interventionists, as well as protectionists. Being conceivably the most distinguishable and the most revered as regards principles of diplomacy, the doctrine’s influence on the popular imagination was so great that it described the limits of standard decisions on policy, in turn influencing the choice of preferences that US Presidents had for most of the last two centuries.
So many things influenced our involvement in the Vietnam War, and Lawrence examines the decisions we made in a greater context than just our own. He argues that international pressures controlled the attitudes and ideas of the United States, for the most part.
As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy, manifest destiny, humanitarianism, and economic expansion.
“... that firmness in that right is indispensable today for peace; that firmness will always be measured. Its mission is peace” (Matuz 1330). The firmness spoke of by President Lyndon B. Johnson in his speech to the American people responded to a second attack in the Gulf of Tonkin; it spoke of America putting their foot down to take whatever actions deemed necessary to end the hostile waves of communism that amplified off of North Vietnam. Such communism possessed the power to split Vietnam in two and held the potential to spread and constrict the whole world. Increased firmness arose necessary to achieve peace and to stop such venom from spreading globally; this, consequently, ensured United States aid to France’s cause of democracy. The United States military countered the communist hostility, with an animosity of their own. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution justified Lyndon B. Johnson’s full advancement of U.S. military in Vietnam to put an end to the global communist progression and to hold firm.
...e importance of central decision-makers and their role in using state power to assert influence abroad when the state is perceived to have the capabilities to do so. Peter Trubowitz also provides a compelling explanation through his evaluation of domestic regional differences shaping foreign policy, but it cannot completely explain why the United States seized foreign territory after years of isolationism. Ultimately, Zakaria provides the more convincing explanation for this sudden surge in American foreign policy during this decade through his analysis of state-centered realism.
The simple argument that nothing last forever is not always true. There are a few aspects throughout history that are timeless such as a diamond’s reflection of love and (the pleasure of popping bubble wrap) (the sun rising in the East and setting in the West) (hand written letters). When Senator Fulbright wrote Arrogance of Power, he established a fundamentally timeless argument that could be used for any direct action foreign policy decision. While his goal was the reduction of intervention in the United States involvement in Vietnam, he created a blueprint for the hands-off approach in the development of a less dominant country for not only the Unites States and Vietnam but to any major power’s intervention in another country’s affairs.
The article, “The Arrogance of Power”, written by William Fulbright in 1966, depicts that throughout the course of history, many powerful countries all over the world have tried to force their wants and ideals onto other, less-fortunate countries in order to morph this world into what they would consider to be “perfect”, using America in Vietnam as his example. In doing so, these more powerful countries are making the poorer countries feel great sense of resentment, even though these more powerful countries are simply trying to help. “The dilemmas involved are preeminently American dilemmas, not because America has weaknesses that others do not have but because America is powerful as no nation has ever been before and the discrepancy between
Several times throughout his essay, Fulbright asks that the American people set a precedent to other countries by not participating in foreign affairs but rather to use its positive relationships with other countries to exemplify strength. By explaining that America’s positive relations with other countries shows its ability to be cooperative, understanding, reliable, and respectful, Fulbright plays on the emotion of his target audience. Furthermore, Fulbright asks that if America must act, that it do so with both empathy and compassion. In his conclusion, Fulbright states “It will involve, no doubt, the loss of certain glories, but that seems a price worth paying for the probable rewards, which are the happiness of America and the peace of the world” (Fulbright). By insinuating that America is capable of happiness and promoting world peace in consideration of his proposal, Fulbright invites his readers to feel hopeful and
Johnson, Loch K. 1942-. American Foreign Policy and the Challenges of World Leadership. Power, Principle, and the Constitution. New York: Oxford UP, 2015. Print.
Fulbright criticizes the acts of U.S. on foreign policy by saying that “the attitude above all others which [he] feels sure is no longer valid is the arrogance of power, the tendency of great nations to equate power with the virtue and major responsibilities with a universal mission” (Fulbright). Because majority of countries in Southeast Asia had lower capacity for resisting communist force and invasion due to low troop levels and unstable economy, U.S. was more eager to assist since it was considered as big nation and felt as its duty to make peace around the world. Rather, U.S. was primarily engaged not because of its sincere concern towards Vietnam but the outer sources, China and Soviet Union due to Cold War in order to dominate power. Moreover, communist ideology already spread from China to North Korea during Korean War and American national security managers and analysts believed that communism would continue its expansion towards more south, such as Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. The reason why U.S. had involvement in Vietnam was to defend country from communism since there was no resources or any economic importance in that country that U.S. would benefit from. However, it was also a way to show off its democratic power as big nation, and felt obligated to do so like Fulbright claimed as the “arrogance of power”. Like Fulbright mentioned, China was often regarded as major threat to the United States but the reason why U.S. was hesitant in contacting with North Vietnam was that it was getting economic support from China. When U.S. actually tried to negotiate peace with North Vietnam, they viewed negotiation as the “fraudulent plots, having been betrayed after previous negotiations by the French in 1946 and by Diem in 1955, the Hanoi government felt that American offers to
The year is 1961 Dwight D. Eisenhower the famous WW2 commander and president of the United States is giving his farewell speech to the nation, during his speech he gave a warning that many people forget “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist”. The 5 Star General and 34th president was warning the people that entities in our military/government are in the business of perpetual war and that can do monumental damage to America. Imply that above quote to the Vietnam war and the Iraq war and our foreign policy in general. You will realize everything
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
The perception of the global interests of America is shaped by the desired future that the American political elite is envisioning. A viable foreign policy strategy then will be simply the roadmap for achieving, to the greatest extent possible, the objectives which are substantiated by that desired future starting from the present condition of the international landscape. The means to achieve these objectives are determined by the relative power capability that America has at present, as well as the capability self-image in the context of the international landscape of the political elite; its world view. The prevailing world view often shapes the motivations of the decision-makers and consequently determines the perceived foreign policy objectives , as well as the very means to achieve these objectives.
The Soviet Union’s collapse at the end of the Cold War left the United States without its major global rival. Now alone at the top, the United States’ strategic imperatives have shifted remarkably. The shift has been significant enough to prompt fundamental questions about the international order and whether this new “unipolar moment” will last. Indeed, since 1989, political scientists have clamored to define the United States’ status relative to the rest of the world. Indispensable nation? Sole super...