President William Howard Taft advocated for “Substituting dollars for bullets,” how does this policy compare to President Theodore Roosevelt’s “Walk softly and carry a big stick” policy?(5 points)

Question

Responses

Substituting dollars for bullets represented relying on economic policy rather than the use of military threat, whereas “big stick” diplomacy relied on the threat of military force.
Substituting dollars for bullets represented relying on economic policy rather than the use of military threat, whereas “big stick” diplomacy relied on the threat of military force.

Substituting dollars for bullets represented using military funds to build and expand U.S. economic interests, whereas “big stick” diplomacy used resources to eliminate the need for military action.

Substituting dollars for bullets represented using military funds to build and expand U.S. economic interests, whereas “big stick” diplomacy used resources to eliminate the need for military action.

Substituting dollars represented spending minimal money and resources to end conflict peacefully, whereas “big stick” diplomacy relied on military resources to end conflict.

Substituting dollars represented spending minimal money and resources to end conflict peacefully, whereas “big stick” diplomacy relied on military resources to end conflict.

Substituting dollars for bullets represented spending more money on military intervention to build on “big stick” policies.

Answer 1

Ultimately, President Taft's policy of "Substituting dollars for bullets" focused on utilizing economic resources and diplomacy to achieve foreign policy goals, while President Roosevelt's "Walk softly and carry a big stick" policy emphasized the use of military force as a deterrent. Taft's approach aimed to avoid military conflict through economic means, whereas Roosevelt's approach utilized military power as a means of asserting American influence and protecting national interests.