American Promotionalism

Emergence of United States of America itself was an epitome of certain ideological expressions i. e. liberty, fraternity, equality etc but American progress in the political, social, economic and technological domains capacitated the American spirit to devise the new ideological patterns and modify the existing ones. The socio-economic growth of 19th century produced a phenomenon of liberal-developmentalism that contains the entire major thematic expressions of American ideology.

This liberal-developmentalism ideology was a combination of American beliefs in their cherished ideals and these liberal beliefs were further augmented by the American historical experience of extraordinary triumphs in the in the socio-economic sectors. All these factors compelled the Americans to assume that their socio-economic model was of universal in nature and must be replicated at the universal level. So this ideology together with economic compulsions and mass production set an impetus to export the American dream to other geographical locations.

Order custom essay American Promotionalism with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

The most widespread concern for American foreign policymakers remain that America has a peculiar destiny and that destiny must be expanded universally. So this ideological underpinning found its expression in the strategic and operational mechanisms of American foreign policies during the last decade of 19th century and first half of the 20th century. The culmination of World War II was the America was successful in inculcating their cherished ideals of democracy, capitalism, free trade etc. in the new world order. Major tenets of American ideology: Emily S.

Rosenberg (1982) has recognized five underlying principle of the Liberal-Developmentalism ideology that emerged in the last half of 19th century. According to him, these major traits are; (1) belief that other nations could and should replicate America’s own developmental experience; (2) faith in private free enterprise;(3) support for free and open access for trade and investment; (4) promotion of free flow of information and culture and (5) growing acceptance of governmental activity to protect private enterprise and to stimulate and regulate American participation in international economic and cultural exchange.

(p. 7) These major tenets of American ideology were inculcated in the spirit and operation of each American foreign policy move. Whether it is annexation of Philippines or colonization of Cuba, these ideological parameters were at the helm of the affairs. Furthermore, this American mission to extend and export these ideological patterns universally worked under two motives. Religious zeal to spread the American version of Christianity with basic features of American socio-economic standards worked closely with secular and liberal intelligentsia.

Evangelical sectors of American life thought that Christianity was a prerequisite for modernization. So missionaries spread American ideals to different parts of the world. Secular sections of American intelligentsia were of the view that national advancements and global progress are the manifestation of a single dream i. e. to propagate American ideology. Rosenberg (1982) asserts that it was the “economic needs, Anglo-Saxon mission, and the progressive impulse” that worked together with government endeavor to set an expansionist agenda and one of the motives for these designs was the spread of American ideology worldwide.

Although there were differences over the question how to propagate Americanization but all these seems converging on a single point that means do not matter and it is all about ends i. e. universalizing the American values. (Hunt, 1987) Acquisition of Philippines; Acquisition of Philippines in the later part of 1890s generated much controversy across America over the issue. The nation was divided into two opposing groups i. e. imperialists and anti-imperialists.

The imperialists favored the annexation due to their worldview based on ground realties and practical necessities while anti-imperialists preferred to base their stand on idealistic and nostalgic views of mythic American past. Imperialist was of the view that in the changing world scenario, America should change it isolationist agenda and must assess its strength against the imperial powers of Europe in the international arena. The spirit of Manifest Destiny subsisted, and imperialists hankered after to expand the American authority and influence overseas.

Their international view was further reinforced by the political, economic and strategic necessities. The anti-imperialists considered the annexation Philippines as an apparent violation of cherished American ideals and political traditions. The imperialist viewpoint can be located by having an in-depth look at the ideas and worldviews of “the five who created the first genuine American imperialism” i. e. John Hay, secretary of state under McKinley and Roosevelt, Alfred T.

Mahan, a naval officer and military analyst; Elihu Root, secretary of war under McKinley and Roosevelt, and was responsible for the management of the Philippines and Cuba; Henry Cabot Lodge, the conniving senator from Massachusetts, and Theodore Roosevelt. (Zimmermann X) These paragons of American imperialism considered that in the changing international political scenario, America should not reside in a policy of isolation but must establish its foothold on various strategically important locations. The ultimate goal of this policy might not be territorial gains but it should be strategic monopoly of the international politics and commerce.

They further reinforced the idea that it is a defining moment in the way America is linked to the world. It will provide “Americans and their leaders self-confidence, a sense of their own power, and an abiding belief that they could shape international life according to their values. ” (Zimmerman I) In addition to these broad concerns, economic gains through the annexation of Philippines further shaped the worldview of the imperialists. President was moved by the “touchstone of Asian trade” (RTAP 52) and economic motives served a proper background for President McKinley’s resolution to annex the islands.

“His [McKinley’s] object was not a colonial empire but the minimum territory needed to obtain conquest of world markets, along with taking of strategic points necessary to protect the conquest. ” (RTAP 52) Acting secretary of States William R. Day and Massachusetts’ Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge considered that the surpluses produced by American factories require huge markets especially China. They were further influenced by Brooks Adams theory of center of money exchanges with a conception that now United States is in a position to capture the world economy and rule it.

Brooks Adam further said, “We must have new markets unless we would be visited by declines in wages and by great industrial disturbances, of which signs have not been lacking. The old theory of competing in foreign markets merely by the price of production is no longer predictable. ” So a “navy, coaling stations and ports in the East…have become essential condition in our times” (RTAP 53) Beside the expansionist design and economic necessities, another factor that contributed to hold the entire archipelago under America was military necessity.

After attaining military victories in the islands, it was inappropriate to vacate it for other powers to fight over it. It was a commonly held belief among imperialist that by placing “A protectorate seemed unsuitable, since it would place heavy duties on the United States without supplying enough authority to carry them out” and “Most American believed that freeing the islands would result in internal chaos followed by a German, British, or Japanese takeover…No country made a serious attempt to deny the Philippines to United States, but at least four might have collided headlong if Washington turned them loose….

”(RTAP 48) The anti-imperialist worldview was based on sentimental and traditional values of the past. Mostly, it was comprised of ethical and moral issues, America’s anti-colonial origin and past, its democratic traditions and cherished ideals of liberty and freedom. This altruistic viewpoint was further founded in the fear that these imperialist practices would erode the traditional political fabric of America and would violate the cherished American ideals.

Yet for all their passion, the enemies of the new imperialism seemed old-fashioned and out of touch. They looked back to a mythic American past, while Roosevelt and his friends laid claim to a bountiful future…the anti-imperialists were on the losing end of historical change. (Zimmermann VIII) Additionally, anti-imperialists American worldview was molded by humanitarian and racial issues and anti-imperialists denounced that like African American, the Filipinos would be treated the same way and would be negated the basic human rights provisions.

This perspective was further supported by feminist stance that identified Filipinos as the American women “who are governed without their consent” (RTAP 55) Some racial views suggested that assimilation of Philippines Eastern society would harm the social fabric of American society and would have negative effects on the future prospects of American social development. The imperialist position was based on concrete ground realities.

Their basic agenda was expansionism or “Americanism (as Roosevelt put it) but it also included the latent political, economic and strategic advantages for America whereas anti-imperialist worldview was grounded in outmoded idealism of the past. Imperialist viewpoint had more practical and beneficial motivation to annex Philippines as Republican Senator Lodge said in the senate, “the enormous material benefits to our trade, our industries, and our labor dependant upon a right settlement of this question” (RTAP 54) Due this imperialist worldview, since 1898, America's role in the world changed forever.

A country that had restricted her power and influence to the western hemisphere suddenly obtained a “global reach that it would never relinquish” (Zimmerman I) This clearly manifested that American annexation of Philippines were motivated by a combination of various factor in which economic necessities and spreading of American dream i. e. to Americanize the peninsula were the chief objectives. Spanish-American War: Spanish-American was another important geo-strategic enterprise that marked the emergence of U. S.

as an important international player. Though war marked the beginning of American Imperialism, but war itself was not caused by the imperialist or expansionist designs of Americans. ” The war”, as Prof. Blum puts it, “grew out of the deplorable conditions in Cuba and seems intolerable to an aroused popular sentiments in the United States. ”(Blum, p. 502) Another reno3wned historian Samuel Morison consider this exercise a totally emotional enterprise and says, “no war was ever more or emotional and less economic in motives” (Morison, 1982.

p. 801) But his assertion on another occasion seems appropriate as it depicts that American exercise was purely based on their cherished ideals of democracy and liberty. He says, “This was a closer and more personal war to Americans than either world war; and was their own little war for liberty and democracy against all that tyrannical, treacherous, and fetid in the Old World”. (p. 802) America found an apt time and place to exercise their ideological patterns.

At last the nation distinguished manifested itself as a major world power and tried to play a vital role in the broad international arrangements for the fist time. It consciously became one of the tutors of the backward nation. Under such pro-consuls as General Leonard Wood, it tried to implant their own ideology in Cuban soil and undertook huge task of psychological and material reformation, reorganizations and development in Cuba. Rosenberg says that General Wood “vowed to create a polity ‘molded closely upon lines of our great Republic.

’ Wood brought in a host of experts to reshape Cuba. Americans assumed direction of customhouses (the major source of government revenue), controlled the country’s finances, organized a postal service, established telephone and telegraphic lines, encouraged railroads and shipping facilities, built road, carried out sanitation projects…established schools…and invited New York City Police to organize their counterparts in Havana. ” (p. 46) All these measures were intended to Americanize the socio-cultural and economic spheres, both at the ideological and material levels.

Rosenberg further says that “Cuba thus became a laboratory for methods of influence that fell short of outright colonialism”. (p. 47) But history manifested that outright colonialism and subjugation of other nation is an outdated phenomenon. Furthermore, direct colonialization and annexation produced resentment and sentiments of hatred among the dominated nation. So it was a not a suitable mechanism to spread the American dreams and its various ideological expressions. So American spirit for exporting their cherished ideals devised new means to have control on the other geographical territories and to mold their society on American pattern.

One of such mechanisms was Howard Taft’s Dollar Diplomacy. Taft wad enthusiastic about the military preparedness as his predecessor Roosevelt was. He therefore used the level of American investments to boost American diplomacy. Fearing the designs of Japan in China, Taft believed that if not checked Japan would not only seize the entire North China but also freeze out American trade in the Far East. Consequently, he supported the construction of American financed railroads in Manchuria with a view to checkmate the Japanese and to preserve the ‘Open Door’ in China.

He encouraged the bankers to invest their surplus in foreign areas of strategic importance to the United States, especially in the Far East and the regions that might menace the Panama Canal. He feared hat if the American investors would not come forward, investors from rival powers like Germany would make the necessary investments and gain control over the seas. But as the American capital have never been interested in making investments in Manchuria, the State Department even brought pressure on the reluctant banks to invest in this region.

This new policy of Dollar diplomacy that substituted dollars for bullets was complete violation of the liberal ideological tenets of freedom of investment. Furthermore this dollar diplomacy was prompted by strategic and imperialist concerns i. e. to check the rapidly growing power of Japan in China instead of promotional objectives. (Nearing and Freeman, 1925) This clearly manifest that sometime during the period 1890-1945, some strategic and defense objective overweighed the higher objective of spreading American ideology abroad and creating a new socio-economic world milieu based on American ideals.

Post World War I Foreign policy and it correlation with Nationalist ideology; A case Study of Germany: During World War I, United States was deeply involved in the affairs of the world and allied won he victory mainly due to the support of men, money and materials they got from United States. But after the war ended, most of the American people started feeling that it was folly on their part to have entered the war because in return for what America gave to the allies, she received nothing.

Consequently there was a rethinking about the foreign policy. In the meanwhile Republicans came to power in America and enunciated a new policy. Harding, the Republican President said about the new foreign policy; “We seek no part in directing the destinies of the world…we are ready to associate ourselves with the nations of the world, great and small, for conference and counsel, for suggestions of mediations, conciliation and arbitration; but every commitment must be made in the exercise of our national sovereignty.

” (Harding, 1923) It would be wrong to attribute this policy of United States as a policy of isolationism or diversion from the American mission of promoting their national ideology abroad. It can more appropriately be described as the policy of ‘cooperation without entangling alliances. ’ This was due to the fact that new subtle and profound international mechanisms were available that can capacitate America to act as a promotional state.

A South American writer, Manuel Ugarte has identified the change in American policy in these words; “The United States… inaugurated the system of annexing wealth, apart from inhabitants or territories, disdaining outward shows in order to arrive at the essentials of domination without a dead-weight of areas to administrate and multitudes to govern… (Manuel Ugarte, 1923). Economic activity was one such subtle mechanism that enabled America to spread its ideology of free trade and capitalistic mode of world commercial activity.

Peace was an ultimate requirement for this mechanism to work. Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover speech about the American economic activity as a tool of American foreign policy provides an important assessment abut the directions pf American foreign policy. “By contributing to peace and economic stability, by the loan of our surplus savings abroad for productive purposes, by the spread f interventions over the world, we can contribute to the elevation of standards of living in foreign countries in their relations to each other. (U. S Department of Commerce, 1926)

At the time of assuming office as president, Harding announced that the league issue was “dead as slavery” and his administration would not lead United States into the League of Nations “by the side door, back door or cellar door”. Yet in spite of these pronouncements Hardinge as well as Coolidge were compelled to involve their country more deeply into the world arena than ever before. But this time their involvement was on a more subtle and economic level. The first such involvement was in the affairs of Europe when it concluded a peace treaty with Germany.

As United States has failed to ratify the treaty of Versailles, she was legally speaking still at war with Germany. In July 1921, Congress passed a resolution by which peace was declared. By this treaty America showed its willingness to pay for the German property seized during the war. This was a subtle move as leaving Germany in a state of devastation would had resulted in bad consequences for America and its ideological and strategic objectives in the region. Bolshevik Russia was a logical choice for Germany if American would have created a vacuum.

This meant that instead of ideals of liberalism, democracy and free trade, socialism and close-economy would had have encircled the German economy and socio-cultural life. Frank Costigliola (1984) says in this regard; Pacifying and rebuilding Germany was integral to containing the Bolshevik revolution… Bolshevik Russia represented both a symbolic and a substantive threat to the peaceful change alternative. Most American leaders viewed the Soviet Union as revolution incarnate, despite Moscow’s caution and conservatism.

If Germany’s political and economic structure collapsed, its people, American feared, might in desperation forged a Russian alliance to overthrow both Versailles and capitalism. Their very opposition to revolution led Hoover, Hughes, and other American leaders to combat the French policy of rigidly enforcing Versailles, which would only build up pressures for change… (p. 96) So resolution of conflicts with Germany, provision of financial, technological and material help to uplift the German socio-economic spheres were imperative for Americans.

Although these were motivated by certain strategic and political goals but ideological consideration acted as underlying theme in the whole process. This is the reason that Hughes appealed to private experts and economists to come with new strategies and theoretical framework to help Germany in its economic turmoil. Export of popular American culture through various means also helped America to spread its influences and ideology abroad. One manifestation of this soft power i. e. American culture was its film industry. It helped greatly to promote the American ideology abroad and also had effect on trade.

Edward G. Lowry as early as 1925 recognized “this new factor in the international relationships that has caused the flutter” (Lowry, 1925. p. 12) Costigliola is of the view that war weary generation of the West looked toward technologically advanced America for cultural models and America offered “its own institutions and values, or what contemporaries termed Americanism” (p. 98) America colonized the European through their soft power especially Films and tried to inculcate their own ideological patterns in the spirit and minds of Europeans.

All these evidence and arguments clearly manifest that although American foreign relation was marked with political necessities and economic concerns but ideological underpinning remained an ultimate objective. The political and economic inevitabilities were also manifestation of these ideological underpinnings For example, to influence free trade was a material expression of liberalism that originated from public-private partnership in the American history.

American concerns in Philippines, Cuba and post World War I apprehensions in Germany was al amalgam of ideological requirement with geo-strategic obligations but it is also a fact that Dollar Diplomacy in Taft’s era in China was solely motivated by political needs. But all these method, use of military and non-military means, acquisition of territories, participation in world economic markets, internationalization of American culture, disarmaments agreement, all were to construct a new world order according to American ideological patterns.

South American writer, Manuel Ugarte has rightly summed up the whole phenomenon in these words; The flexibility of North American imperialism in its external activities, and the diverse forms which it adopts according to the circumstances, the racial composition and social conditions of the people upon which its action is exercised, is one of the most significant phenomenon of this century;…(p. 139) References Blum, John Morton. The National Experience. San Diego : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1985. Connor, William P.

United States annexation of the Philippines: a reinterpretation. [Kingston] University of Rhode Island. 1972 Edward G. Lowry. Trade Follows the Film. Saturday Evening Post. 198. (November, 1925) 12-13. Frank Costigliola. U. S. Cultural Exapsion in an Era of Systematic Upheaval in Major Problems in American Foreign: documents and essays. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2000. Harding, Warren G. Inaugural Address. (March 4, 1921) available at Avalon Project, Yale Law School. Website<<www. yale. edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/harding. htm>> Hughes.

Debt and German Reparations: Hughes Calls on Private Experts for Help, 1922 in Major Problems in American Foreign Relations. Hunt, Michael. Ideology and U. S. Foreign Policy. Yale University Press; 1988. Manuel Ugarte. The Destiny of a Continent. Catherine A. Phillips (tr. ). New York. Knopf. 1925. Merrill, Dennis & Paterson, Thomas G. Major problems in American foreign relations: documents and essays. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2000. Morison, Samuel E. The Oxford History of American People. New York, Oxford University Press. 1965. Nearing, Scott& Freeman, Joseph.

Dollar diplomacy; a study in American imperialism. New York, B. W. Huebsch and the Viking Press. 1925. Rosenberg, Emily S. & Foner, Eric. Spreading the American Dream. New York : Hill and Wang, 1982. U. S. Department of Commerce. in Major Problems in American Foreign: documents and essays. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2000. Volker, Karren & Zola, Jaye. The annexation of the Philippines, Denver, CO : Center for Teaching International Relations, 1999. Zimmermann,Warren. “Jingoes, goo-goos, and the rise of America's empire. ” The Wilson Quarterly 22. Spring 1998.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer