“On the Arrogance of Power, 1966” Known as one of the most influential senators in American history, William J. Fulbright served as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1959 through 1974, and at his death in 1995, he was the group’s longest serving reader. During this time, he authored “On the Arrogance of Power, 1966”, in which discussed the tendency of countries to equate power as proof of superiority. In fact, he Fulbright refers to “the arrogance of power – as a psychological need that nations seem to have in order to prove that they are bigger, better, or stronger than other nations” (1). Using a combination of pathos, ethos, and logos appeals, he presents support for his argument. Because power corrupts how people and …show more content…
It is the belief that America expresses its cultural superiority through its wealth and dominance, and its superiority is measured in military strength. Using the appeal of logos, he states, “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 image” (Fulbright 1). This belief that “the United States has a divinely ordained role to play in the sacred drama of the world history” (Lears 33) is one that Fulbright argues must not succeed. According to “The Arrogance of Power Revisited” by Jackson Lears, Fulbright was concerned that “America was losing its perspective on what was within its capacity to control and what was beyond it” …show more content…
In this situation, the author uses the emotional appeal of pathos as well as logos, to logically explain how arrogance of power affects the thoughts and actions of American travelers. According to Fulbright, “Foreigners frequently comment… in our own country, they say, we are hospitable and considerate, but as soon as we get outside our own borders something seems to get into us and wherever we are we become noisy and demanding and we strut around as if we owned the place “ (3). In many countries, American companies have a strong presence in the economy and American hotels and restaurants are available to protect and cater to American travelers. In some instances, the American military may be stationed in a country or at the very least, its population may be aware that their survival is dependent on the “wisdom with which American uses her immense military power” (Fulbright 3). Therefore, when an American travels, he or she may unconsciously be affected by this knowledge as were “Greeks and Romans, …Spaniards, Germans, and Englishmen, in the brief high noons of their respective ascendancies” (Fulbright
Susan Harris’s book God’s Arbiters explores the religious rhetoric when discussing expansion of the United States. She focuses solely on the time period of 1898 through 1902. In this book, Harris calls on the works of numerous poets, authors, and political figures to show the perception of the United States imperialist motives from outside the borders. Harris uses Mark Twain as an epigraph at the beginning of the book with the quotation “I am an anti-imperialist.” Drawing upon authors such as Rudyard Kipling and his pro-annexation story The White Man’s Burden, Harris shows both sides of the debate through authors and poets alike. This use of writers offers an interesting perspective to the argument for and against imperialism, furthermore offering a look into the minds of intellectuals of the period. The main issue addressed by Harris is
The United States has a long history of great leaders who, collectively, have possessed an even wider range of religious and political convictions. Perhaps not unexpectedly, their beliefs have often been in conflict with one another, both during coinciding eras, as well as over compared generations. The individual philosophies of William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, with regard to America’s roles in world affairs and foreign diplomacy; are both varied and conflicted. Despite those conflicts however, each leader has left his own legacy behind, in terms of how the U.S. continues to engage in world affairs today.
The scholarly debate about the concept of American Exceptionalism has been a topic of discussion for many decades. As a matter of fact, the debating that surrounds the concept of American Exceptionalism doesn’t arise from a vacuum. It arises from the various usages over time, which is related to the historical development of America that makes it different from other nations in Europe and elsewhere. It makes it even more difficult and complicated to establish just one single definition to this concept. Adding to that, many people from different cultural and religious backgrounds have various ideas of what America means to them. Thus, this essay will trace back the origin of American Exceptionalism and will highlight
The dispute that throughout “American Exceptionalism”, is an ancient perception of which becomes a well-respected idea that is idealistically important throughout history, it makes what America will become and forever be known as. It reflects on the ideas of foreign policies to become what we call America today; in which it remains the current movement in globalization. Eric Rauchway, Blessed Among Nations, explains that globalizations the movement of the regional economies, societies, and cultures that is combined through a constituent network of communication to lower a violation of social more, which makes America a world-wide leader in combating the cultural violation to these social mores. In our time, it seems that globalization has become an large extent the product of American policies since WWII.
Monroe wrote that Spain and Portugal’s efforts "to improve the condition of the people of [colonized countries in the Americas]” yielded disappointing results, and suggests that the United States was better positioned to take on the role of colonial overseer given the nation’s unique geographical, social, and political connection to the Americas. Monroe justified this right to benevolent imperialism largely around the idea that America’s government, “has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, [which has produced] unexampled felicity [throughout America].” Yet contained within this utopian treatment of the American political system is the inherent suggestion that the American definition of “unexampled felicity” was universally applicable throughout the Americas. Here, the issue of textuality is raised; while politically, the protection of American countries by the United States suggests a benevolent intention, the idea that America had indirect authority over its neighbors indicates an impe...
American Umpire challenges the most common picture of foreign policy as royal nature. Elizabeth Cobbs Hoffman argues that the empire fails to describe the goals and outcomes of American actions. The U.S start a royal power that messes with global event but when the behaviors of the international community come to challenge its interests. Even though this is not a perfect image, she shows that several examples of umpire has the uneven results of following a foreign policy on the often conflicting models of spreading democratic ideals.
One common theme, which stretched the American spirit beyond its borders and into the soil of foreign territory during both old and new expansionism, is the belief that the U.S. was destined by providence, power, and its own intrinsic worth to expand beyond her boundaries. Senator Albert J. Beveridge revealed this mindset in his 1900 address to the 56th congress when he outlined his faith that God almighty had chosen the United States of America to act as keeper and leader in his volatile time in world politics. Having this belief that the United States was divinely appointed to be a superpower was of similar proportion to the desire of p...
The U.S tried to play a role in worldwide politics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. With promising markets developing in China, the U.S needed a path to Asia. It’s overseas expansion was the key to this path as they could use the island nations they had taken and use them as “stepping stones” for a path to China. This brought upon resistance through whether the U.S had overstepped its boundaries and pushed too hard for this path. Document 6 shows this anti-imperialist view in which William Jennings Bryan proclaims that the acquisition of overseas territories such as the Philippines was the action of an Empire and that a Republic can never be an Empire. His views are influenced by the inherent Nativism present in society. It is an opposed view in which the U.S was hurting itself in its goal for world power rather than help itself. Document 2 reinforces this ideal, with William Graham Sumner bashing at the U.S’s attempt to become a colonial power much like Spain was in the
After the civil war, United States took a turn that led them to solidify as the world power. From the late 1800s, as the US began to collect power through Cuba, Hawaii, and the Philippines, debate arose among historians about American imperialism and its behavior. Historians such as William A. Williams, Arthur Schlesinger, and Stephen Kinzer provides their own vision and how America ought to be through ideas centered around economics, power, and racial superiority.
This logical argument follows the stance that by providing a grand example of what a country and culture can look like, the United States will invoke that desire in others that want it. He argues that by providing this example, it would create improved relationships with countries and cultures, first world to third world. He finalizes his essay with a quote from John Quincy Adams “be ‘the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all’ but ‘the champion and vindicator only of her own.’…” (qtd. in Fulbright). In this quote, Senator Fulbright completes his essay arguing that the United States should become a cheerleader for other countries freedom but only providing direct action to her own future. This concept transcends the Vietnam War with the ability to incorporate the same quote as it relates to another country’s response to the Yugoslavian civil war or the 1991 Haitian
With power comes responsibility. However, the responsibility to act in foreign conflicts has always been cause for skepticism, especially in America. In his essay "On the Arrogance of Power, 1966", Senator William J. Fulbright uses all three categories of Aristotle’s rhetorical strategies to successfully argue why America’s arrogance of power is not always well received by the countries it is trying to help. Fulbright argues that it is America’s power that makes it arrogant when involving themselves with the plights of other countries. Although his argument is not without flaws, Fulbright uses emotion, logic, and credibility to make a strong argument for why
...nce, that while the bourgeoisie can assert its interests everywhere.” (Conklin & Fletcher, 1999, p. 50). Even though today’s society has branched away from an imperialistic mindset, the roots of globalization promote the advancements of power to those who are already very much in power, minus the war and the bloodthirsty monopolizations. To step outside the spectrum of imperialism, and ponder upon today’s world culture, America seems to be shaping the world, as we know it. The blueprint of progress and ever changing industrial, economical and global influences are greatly dependent on that of America and their innovations. It may not be American scientists behind the computers at NASA or behind the keyboards of Windows computers but there are U.S. based industries. The exponential progress of Globalization can be directly linked to American affairs, without a doubt.
It is somehow strange for today’s reader to find out that the situation with America’s foreign affairs hasn’t changed much. As some clever people have said, “The History book on the shelf is always repeating itself.” Even after nineteen years, Americans think of themselves as citizens of the strongest nation in the world. Even after the September the 11th. Even after Iraq. And Afghanistan.
Eagle Rules? Foreign Policy and American Primacy in the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Robert J. Lieber. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002. 152-172.
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.