Explain the difference between the views of the interventionists and anti-interventionists in American politics in this era. (Imperialists = interventionists)

Question

(Unit 10 lesson 6)

Answer 1

In the context of American politics during the era marked by imperialism, interventionists and anti-interventionists held fundamentally different views regarding the United States' role in international affairs and its approach to foreign policy.

Interventionists (or Imperialists)

Views and Beliefs:

1. Expansion of Influence: Interventionists believed in the expansion of American influence and territory, often supporting the acquisition of overseas territories.
2. Economic Interests: They argued that imperialist policies could open new markets for American goods and secure resources necessary for economic growth.
3. Moral Responsibility: Many interventionists felt a moral obligation to 'civilize' other nations, often justified by a belief in American exceptionalism and the superiority of American democracy and culture.
4. Military Engagement: This group typically supported military interventions as a means to defend American interests abroad and promote stability in regions that were strategically important.
5. Manifest Destiny: A belief rooted in the idea of Manifest Destiny, the notion that the U.S. was destined to expand its territory and democratic ideals across the globe.

Historical Examples:

• The Spanish-American War (1898) and the acquisition of territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
• Support for interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean, such as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.

Anti-Interventionists

Views and Beliefs:

1. Isolationism: Anti-interventionists advocated for a more isolationist approach to foreign policy, arguing that the U.S. should focus on its domestic affairs rather than involving itself in international conflicts.
2. Skepticism of Military Power: They expressed concerns over the costs and consequences of military engagement, fearing entanglement in foreign wars and conflicts.
3. Preservation of Sovereignty: This group valued national sovereignty and believed that intervention could lead to undermining both American democracy at home and the autonomy of nations abroad.
4. Economic Concerns: Anti-interventionists often pointed to the potential economic costs of wars and interventions, arguing that resources should be used to address domestic issues instead.
5. Moral Integrity: They typically believed that intervention could lead to moral compromises and the imposition of American values on other nations against their will.

Historical Context:

• Opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Philippines after the Spanish-American War.
• Resistance to the interventionist policies of early 20th century leaders, which led to debates about America's role in World War I.

Conclusion

The divergence between interventionists and anti-interventionists represented a significant ideological struggle in American politics during the era of imperialism. Interventionists championed expansion and engagement, while anti-interventionists sought to prioritize national sovereignty and domestic concerns. This debate laid the groundwork for discussions on foreign policy that continue to resonate in American political discourse today.