American Ideologies

American Ideologies
Professor
Course
Student
American Ideologies
In history, United States has subscribed to various ideologies. These ideologies include isolationism, expansionism, pacifism, and internationalism.
Isolationism
Isolationism refers to the refusal to engage in political or economic issues with other countries. Isolationism also refers to the resistance to intervene in war or engagement in post war treaties particularly outside the Western Hemisphere. Isolationism is associated with America’s colonists who crossed the Atlantic to evade war, and other tribulations in Europe. They believed that the new place was superior to the place they had left behind. The colonists proposed the need to avoid engagement in war, especially war with Europe (Donovan, 1951).
The ideology of isolationism can be attributed to a number of factors. Firstly, The United States was geographically detached. It was also a self-sufficient country and therefore was least interested in engagement with other continents. Thirdly, initially United States was not very strong both in military power and economically. This meant that isolationism protected United States from the Europeans who longed to maintain the power they had lost in the American continent.
Isolationism was heightened in the nineteenth century due to the need to focus on national development. Isolationism was also fuelled by the assumption that the European interests were very diverse from the interests of the United States. The United States also believed that it was safe from any military or political war. Isolationism was seen as shortsightedness and an inconsistent ideology concerning the war. The isolationists were against warfare for a global cause but supported its happening in the Western hemisphere. All the ideologies preach peace but isolationists adopt a more tapered approach. Isolationists believed that United States should only engage in war in self-defense but abstain from it if for any other reasons (Donovan, 1951).
However, by 1880s national and global developments were making isolationism irrelevant. American industries and agricultural production had expanded and they needed to get markets abroad. Isolationism aims to preserve the sovereignty of action for the United States. The United States had adopted an isolationist policy until the twentieth century. It was the major ideology directing the US foreign policy and ended with the World War II. Isolationism meant that United States would secure autonomy on its foreign affairs. Isolationism reached an end after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. In 1949, United States entered a military coalition with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Isolationism has been described as ‘inert egoism’ (Donovan, 1951).
There was a hard fought war resulting from the interventions. In this war, the party of neutrality was composed of isolationists as well as pacifism. These prevailed from the notion that Americans could not enter in either wars unless they were provoked. They were therefore compelled to go to war. This made Americans and foreigners to label the federal government as a country that was trying rather foolishly but in vain. America was equated to Switzerland in terms of being big and boisterous. However, by exhortation and argument Americans were aroused. They were always in danger of relapsing to perform their obligation as befits their super power. In the greater world, isolationism is a term that refers to Americans reluctance and denial in getting involved in European wars and alliances. This is because isolationism stems from Americans difference in perception compared to Europeans in terms of approaching world issues. Europeans believed that Americans could advance the cause of freedom and democracy only through war (Simon, 2002). Top of Form
Ideology of expansion
Expansionism was an ideology that was espoused by American citizens in the 19th century. There was a belief known as the manifest destiny that proposed the expansion of America across the continent (Merk, 1963). Democrats used manifest destiny to define expansion beyond the Louisiana territory in the mid nineteenth century. They used it to engage war with Mexicans and also get hold of parts of Oregon from the British rulers. According to Merk, it faced many drawbacks and expansion was never an issue of state precedence (1963). John Quincy Adams was a great advocate of Manifest destiny. However, in the mid nineteenth century he changed his stands, as expansionism would mean an extension of slavery in Texas (Tuveson, 1980). The treaty of 1818 also established the United States – Canada border. Manifest destiny did not have clearly defined principles and therefore there were various conflicting interpretations about it. These conflicting viewpoints were never addressed (Tuveson, 1980). American expansionism was viewed as extending to Mexico, to the border of the Rio Grande or across the pacific. According to O’Sullivan (1845), Manifest Destiny implied the seizure of Texas or Oregon. He also wrote articles that addressed the dispute of territory between Americans and the British Empire. He proposed that the United States had the right to claim the entire of Oregon territory. He further envisaged “Divine Destiny” in America, which would be founded on values like equality, moral dignity and salvation. Divine destiny was not seizure of land but a forecast that America would be an amalgamation of many states who shared similar values (O’Sullivan, 1845). Some viewed American expansionism as a duty to be an example (Tuveson, 1980).
Manifest destiny did not dictate the use of force in order to expand territorial ground. O’Sullivan expansion would occur without engagement by the United States government or military participation. Expansion would take place if Americans immigrated to new areas where they begin to set up democratic governments and then seek to be incorporated to the United States. This is what happened in Texas. He was against the American war with Mexico but turned around to see the benefits of the war (Johannsen, 1997).
Manifest destiny was criticized because it went against the tenets of the constitution and rights (Merk, 1963). Critics also claimed that the actions of the proponents of manifest destiny were driven by chauvinism and selfishness (Merk, 1963). A number of United States citizens did not believe in the need for expansion and in divine destiny. There were reservations about expanding widely. In 1803, the purchase of Louisiana made America two times bigger. This set a platform for the expansion ideology. In the 19th cent...