Theodore Roosevelt's Big Stick Diplomacy In Interventionist Foreign Policy

1363 Words3 Pages

Big stick diplomacy, the dollar diplomacy and moral diplomacy by Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft and Woodrow Wilson respectively have had profound impacts on foreign policy, especially during the beginning of the 21st century.Big stick diplomacy describes the foreign policy implemented by Theodore Roosevelt during his presidency 1901-1909. Roosevelt advocated for a policy that reflected the idea that one should “speak softly and carry a big stick.” He described it as “the exercise of intelligent thought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis,” which clearly reflects the prevailing thought of Realpolitik as well as Machiavellian ideals. In practice, this foreign policy ideal is reflected in military terms. …show more content…

Roosevelt’s big stick diplomacy was very important in interventionist foreign policy. His stance was firmly military, no doubt influenced by his past in the US military. Big stick diplomacy was utilized to “seize unprecedented power in handling international affairs” (Shoemaker, 2012). According to Shoemaker (2012), it was Teddy Roosevelt’s interventionist policy which “subverted the Constitution” and helped transform the United States into one of the most powerful nations in the world, in the sense that it allowed the spread of American values and ideals throughout the world. Big stick diplomacy also weakened constitutional government, since it allowed the executive branch to have more sway in foreign policy (Shoemaker, 2012). The manifest destiny is an important concept to note when examining Roosevelt’s presidency. The perception was that any state which did not embrace American ideals, especially regarding freedom and democracy, was potentially a threat to national security (Shoemaker, 2012). Under the idea of big stick democracy too, Roosevelt declared that the US and not Europe, was the only nation that had authority to intervene in Latin America, and that he was acting in the Western Hemisphere’s best interests. The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe doctrine demonstrates this belief best and was later used to justify military interventions worldwide, “the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, to the exercise of an international police power” (Roosevelt, 1905 in Shoemaker, 2012). This is highlighted by the US’ intervention in the Dominican Republic and Cuba, where Congress never gave permission for Roosevelt to take over Dominica’s customs houses and enforce revenue collection, or to send military to restore order in Cuba when the

Open Document