Issues of Domestic Strategy of the Progressives

Roosevelt, all the sources install clear, individualize orthogonal polity on the basis of his lust for the warrior mentality. Taft, when Roosevelt attacked his little aggressive foreign policy, wrote to a friend: "The truth is . . . [Roosevelt] believes in war and wishes to be a Napoleon and to die on the battle field. He has the spirit of the old berserkers" (Cooper, 1983, p. 154). Roosevelt's aggressiveness in foreign policy transcended both the practical and the ideal methods and ends of some progressives. In fact, relative to his foreign policy, his progressive house servant policy was tame:

In contrast to his restraint in domestic policy, Roosevelt conducted a vigorous, assertive foreign policy. . . . Historians have judged these years the high-water class of American imperialism. Roosevelt . . . proclaimed himself an unabashed, unapologetic imperialist. [He declared:] "Chronic erroneous belief . . . or an impotence which results in the general loosening of the ties of civilise society may . . . require intervention. . . . [and] . . . may force the fall in States . . . to the exercise of an international police ability (Cooper, 1990, p. 50).

Accordingly, in his imperialist extension of progressive domestic policy and his belief in aggressive and activist use of government power, Roosevelt led a series of diplomatic, economic and military intervention with respect to Germany, Venezuela, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Canada, Panama and Colombia (Cooper, 1990,

Clearly, the progressives considered their cause to be an activist one domestically, in which the government employ its power to primarily support the people against big business, and to be a pacific one in foreign affairs. To these three Presidents, however, progressivism was mistranslated into a foreign policy in which the American government used its tremendous military, diplomatic and/or economic power to captivate or radically alter the policies or even the truly governments of other nations around the world.

---. The Warrior and the Priest. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

The progressives had rallied to Wilson on the promise that he would make the center hold, that his mobilization policies would preserve reform gains at residence and that his diplomacy would introduce liberal American moderation into the village of the conflict in Europe. Now all those aspirations were overshadowed by Wilson's end to extinguish dissent (Kennedy, 1980, p. 88).

It is no surprise to find, then, that Roosevelt and Taft parted shipway over the course of progressivism both at home and abroad. Actually, to to the highest degree progressives, in the international realm, Taft was more aligned with their principles of peace than each Roosevelt or Wilson proved to be. As Cooper writes,

Taft's presidency was pronounced by a relative tepidness compared to Roosevelt's both at home and abroad. Link argues that Taft "possessed neither Roosevelt's astuteness nor his energy." Taft immediately left many "wondering how deep the President's progressivism went." Finally,

In foreign policy Taft departed from the path forged by Roosevelt. . . . Taft did non engage in anything like Roosevelt's activist, great-power diplomacy. He did continue a supervisory role for the United States in the Western Hemisphere, which include maintaining American protectorates in the Caribbean. The foreign policy of Taft

in the organize of 1910 [Taft} took the last step in his devolution from progressivism to conservati
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.