Use the phrase to answer the question. “Substituting dollars for bullets.” How does President Taft’s dollar diplomacy phrase compare to President Roosevelt’s “big stick” diplomacy? (1 point) Responses Substituting dollars represented utilizing economic policy in exchange for the use of military threat, whereas “big stick” diplomacy relies on the threat of military force. Substituting dollars represented utilizing economic policy in exchange for the use of military threat, whereas “big stick” diplomacy relies on the threat of military force. Substituting dollars represented spending more money on military intervention to build on “big stick” diplomacy policies. Substituting dollars represented spending more money on military intervention to build on “big stick” diplomacy policies. Substituting dollars for bullets represented using military funds to build and expand U.S. economic interests in Latin America, whereas “big stick” diplomacy used military funds and resources. Substituting dollars for bullets represented using military funds to build and expand U.S. economic interests in Latin America, whereas “big stick” diplomacy used military funds and resources. 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.

Answer 1

Substituting dollars for bullets represented utilizing economic policy in exchange for the use of military threat, whereas “big stick” diplomacy relies on the threat of military force. President Taft's dollar diplomacy focused on using economic incentives and investments to achieve foreign policy goals, while President Roosevelt's "big stick" diplomacy emphasized the use of military power as a means of coercion and deterrence.