Dollar Diplomacy was clearly the best foreign policy for America at the turn of the century. America was approaching the pinnacle of its own industrial might, and was quickly becoming an economic superpower. The days of the Jeffersonian, self-sufficient agrarian society are long gone. This era put America on the precipise of globalization. Economic options can most certainly replace military options as the United States grows more and more wealthy and powerful. Exchanging "Dollars for Bullets" as Taft said will gain the United States more friends through diplomatic means than any army ever could. Also, by sending cash instead of bombs to other countries, those countries will be more likely to allow the U.S. to sell their goods in that country tariff free! Thats more people to buy American goods, and more money for American businesses!
Your assignment is to support your argument either for or against my comments below. Remember, a simple "I agree" or "I disagree" will not suffice. I've elected to support Taft's Dollar Diplomacy for no other reason than I anticipated that many of you would not. This in no way reflects my actual beliefs in foreign policy at the turn of the century... Or does it?
Dollar Diplomacy was clearly the best foreign policy for America at the turn of the century. America was approaching the pinnacle of its own industrial might, and was quickly becoming an economic superpower. The days of the Jeffersonian, self-sufficient agrarian society are long gone. This era put America on the precipise of globalization. Economic options can most certainly replace military options as the United States grows more and more wealthy and powerful. Exchanging "Dollars for Bullets" as Taft said will gain the United States more friends through diplomatic means than any army ever could. Also, by sending cash instead of bombs to other countries, those countries will be more likely to allow the U.S. to sell their goods in that country tariff free! Thats more people to buy American goods, and more money for American businesses!
13 Comments
Sophia Perry
3/2/2012 07:36:45 am
I disagree with what you've said. While the US was certainly growing and the days of "self sufficiency" were on the decline, dollars can in no logical way replace bullets. Yes America would need to establish diplomatic trades with various countries to “start up” the economy; however at some point other opposing countries would try to bully people with their military. If the US has a weak military, since their diplomacy is based solely on cash, the only way to save ourselves or prevent trouble would be to buy ourselves out of it. This causes more problems than it fixes since it would push America into debt and eventually we'd run out of money. When the money runs out so would our protection. Rather we like it or not people respond to fear and countries with large militaries, even when not in use, instill this emotion and people think twice before messing with the “bigger dog”. Having a strong military allows the US to defend themselves and their trading partners which would be more profitable in the long run. If we have our partners backs in protection they’ll, hopefully, have ours in economic stimulation so while cash can guarantee many things it'll never replace bullets in protection and prevention when other countries attack. In this instance I feel it best to combine the policies. Cash can be used readily but we should all, to quote Roosevelt, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”
Reply
Damesha Bailey
3/4/2012 08:51:01 pm
I agree that Dollar Diplomacy is the best foreign policy. I dont belive america should put america growth first. Yes, it should be the top priority, but it shouldnt be our first. Roosevelt's foreign policy is the best because of the intimidation. And it in a way prevented war
Reply
Joy Kleisinger
3/4/2012 01:20:25 am
I agree partially with what Mr. Haynes said. It is logical for the U.S. to put our own economic growth at the top of the priority list. After all, we want our country and its people to have the best econmic opportunities. But at the same time, we do not want to abandon our military. What if another country were to attack us? We would be left without any protection. We as a country need to both protect our economic interests, while also having the ability to protect our country in a time of crisis.
Reply
Dexter Smith
3/4/2012 04:08:27 am
I agree with Mr. Haynes and Sophia on some parts but, the best foriegn policy for the United States should be a compromise between Mr. Hayes' "Dollar Diplomacy" and Sophia's "Big Stick Policy".
Reply
Caitlin Bechtold
3/4/2012 04:59:13 am
I agree with both Joy and Haynes. Dollar Diplomacy is great in the sense of making sure our country is economically stable and it is great that Taft wants to create powerful allies but like Joy said we cannot turn a blind eye towards our military. By opening our allies that creates more of an opportunity for conflict incase one of our allies wants us to fight with them in war. I think that we must establish allies but also create a powerful military that is ready to intimidate and deploy at any moment. We cannot leave our country unprotected. I think that regardless of how many allies we create we should stay out of their conflicts because our country cannot afford to send our men to go fight someone elses disagreement that they could have settled without violence. Taft's Dollar Dipolmacy is a great way to build our country as long as we are able to go to war with a strong military whenever threatened.
Reply
Felicia Pelfrey
3/4/2012 05:14:17 am
I disagree with Mr. Haynes. He does make some solid points, but as a whole, I feel the Big Stick Policy will be the most successful.
Reply
Dexter Smith
3/4/2012 08:18:02 am
How exactly wold the Dollar Diplomacy have the possibility of our economy going into debt?
Reply
Kay C. Johnson
3/4/2012 09:43:48 am
I agree with Mr. Haynes’ support of “Dollar Diplomacy”. During that era of American history, President Taft’s diplomatic policy was, by far, the best approach to serve American interests in the Far East and in the region of the Panama Canal. Not only did this benefit American interest financially, it also, with the exception of Latin American countries, kept our military out of prolonged entanglements in foreign lands. It was much better to have our military serve as peace keepers in the troubled regions close to home, than to have them deployed in Far Eastern countries were our cultural influence was not accepted. Investing in our interests was a smart way to expand the reaches of American business throughout the world. With American dollars came great American influence. These countries needed American money to help their economies and thus America was a great influence on their cultures. Also, this kept out European investors and European influence which would have been detrimental to American interests. It was better for Americans to come into a country with dollars in their hands rather than weapons. When we demonstrated our wealth to other countries they also saw that our wealth could back a military if needed. So there was no need for a “Big Stick”.
Reply
I agree with Mr. Hay-nizzle in that, yes, less military action and more money could get us more friends and spread diplomacy more, but I have a question. What would happen if America went into a recession or a depression (spoiler alert)? Would our "friends" stay with us or would our money well drying up cause them to go find another steady cash flow? I mainly belive that Wilson's "Moral Diplomacy" plan works the best. With it, Wilson refused to recognize hostile or undemocratic nations. Wilson used this plan to fight a war on General Huerta, and only General Huerta, while aiming at giving the government back to the people of Mexico. That, I think, would give America truer allies than ones we buy.
Reply
Rikki Dressman
3/4/2012 11:53:34 am
I agree with Dexter and Joy. A combination of Roosevelt's Big Stick Diplomacy along with the Dollar Diplomacy would be best for the U.S. It is always a great idea to do what is economically right for America, but if we do not have a military to back economic decisions gone bad, then we will be in trouble. Abandoning the military would not benefit our society at all. America would have to rely on it's "friends" to aid us if another country has conflict with us. If they were not willing to help, more than just the economy would be in danger. Having a strong military to come to our defense will be best with the Dollar Diplomacy. This way, our economy can flourish, we can form alliances, and build a powerful industrial force while having a intimidating military that will remain faithful to their country.
Reply
John Dashner
3/4/2012 12:03:24 pm
I agree with what you've said because America needs to continue expanding, and if that means expanding our economy then so be it. Our economy was growing so rapidly and strongly that the next natural step was to begin influencing the world economy to become the powerhouse we are now. Using Dollar Diplomacy will allow us to increase our profits and decrease our costs to trade with other coutnries. This is a win-win situation for us.
Reply
3/5/2012 08:13:20 am
I agree with what you have said but not completely. I think the best foreign policy is a cross between big stick and dollar diplomacy. While it is good to have a strong economy and investments in other countries, it also good to have a strong military. I disagree with the statement Mr. Haynes made that said economic options could replace military options. A country always needs its military; no matter the economic circumstances of that country. A strong global economy is important but so is having a strong military to back it up. Having a strong economy is a priority but like Damesha said, it should not be the first. The first should be the nation's safety. If our nation is in danger than so are all of our investments. The best overall policy for the United States is a combination between Roosevelt and Taft because they both have good points and a combination would make America strong on all fronts.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
May 2014
Categories
All
|