George W. Bush more like T. Roosevelt as opposed to Taft and Wilson Essay

President George W. bush-leagues place phratry 11th polity certainly shows great resemblances to President Theodore Roosevelts external insurance more than that of Taft or Wilson. Roosevelt had a more rear polity, advance the mightinessful defense of the nation and the spreading of democracy and Christian thoughtls to slight fortunate countries. This was very much so a direct correlativity to what provide tried to do Tafts policy emphasized sparing ideals in that he argued the US should lend step forward money and jockstrap countries elevate their economic status in order for the promotion of peace of mind and prosperity throughout the world. Wilsons policy emphasized morality, and the nice ridicule standpoint of how the US should carry out obligations. Consequently, President George provides policy is a better reflection of President Theodore Roosevelts policy more than Tafts or Wilsons policy because of the military and policy- fashioning ideals that the two po licies share.President Bushs post family 11 policy reflects Roosevelts is because of the swift, stern actions that Bushs ecesis took aft(prenominal) the attacks on the nation. As Bush sent the process over to Iraq rapidly and in great numbers, the administration sent a candid and stern message. The United States would not stand for an attack on its soil, and those who did so would secure scrape punishment for their actions. This message echoes the morals behind the big articulatio policy. Just as Theodore Roosevelt once said, Speak softly and carry a big stick. Theodore Roosevelt believed that king was an important and unavoidable thing in abroad affairs.He also noted in his addition to the Monroe Doctrine (called the Roosevelt Corollary) that if any nation in the western sandwich Hemisphere appeared in a political or fiscal situation that would allow for European control, the US should intervene. With an imperialist outlook on the world, Roosevelt made the US a nation th at endlessly intervened and table serviceed Latin American countries avoid European interference in the Western Hemisphere. Examples of this lie in Theodore Roosevelt actions when he made Cuba a protectorate, took Guam and Puerto Rico, as headspring as when he ventured out and involved the United States in the peace of the Philippines all in order to fortify the existence of democracy and Christianity and help the individuals of the nations govern themselves.These ideals and policies were mirrored in Bushs actions when the US troops inhabited the Middle East, and the Bush administration took it upon itself to take advantage of their line of work of the lands by spreading its ideals of democracy and correct political procedures. By doing this, the Bush Administration had essentially identified these locations in the Middle East as lesser fortunate nations, deemed themselves fit to help these regions, and force their help medieval the judicatures of the regions and to the peopl e. This decision and series of actions greatly resembles the actions and opinions of Roosevelts Corollary.Tafts policy by contrast, was more of the United States venturing out to unlike land allowing for each foreign nations gradual acquiring of political and economic power through US investment in the countries infrastructures, which has little to do with Bushs initial choice to attack the Middle East afterward September 11. Taft used Dollar Diplomacy, instead of military force. He valued control and to aid businessmen in the US, and was in strong usey favour of solving problems via economic means rather than militarily.He saw his policy as humanitarian, for stabilization improved the living scale and conditions. For instance, in Nicaragua during 1912, the government would default on its debts, which might mean European intervention. The US offered to bestow money (by private men) if the US could have some supervision over Nicaraguan finances. Bushs post September 11 policy d oes not mirror this because he was in favor of military force and making it known militarily that the US could not be attacked without grave punishment.Wilson however based his policy on Morality. Bushs post September 11th policy did not wholly reflect Wilsons policy because Wilsons Missionary policy aimed more in the manner of seeking peace and prosperity by means of creating pathways for institutions to branch out globally while Bushs aim after the September 11 attacks was to retaliate forcefully and brutally (neither of which was peaceful). For instance, when the Nipponese attempted, in the infamous Twenty-one Demands (1915), to reduce China almost to the status of a Japanese protectorate, he persuaded them to modify their conditions slightly. The Twenty-One Demands required that China immediately throw in the towel its leasing of territory to foreign powers and to ascent to Japanese control over Manchuria and Shandong (Shantung) among other(a) demands. Such persuasion as opp osed to attack and forcefully making the US point reveals the difference between Bushs and Wilsons policy.Consequently, it is evident that President Bushs post September 11 policy best resembles Roosevelts big stick diplomacy. Roosevelts policy was based on pragmatism as well as the idea of the nations obligatory retaliation to threats and attacks on the nations soil. His belief in the United States obligation to help foreign nations in need of political/military assistance is also a part of his policy. After the September 11th attacks, each of these ideals was echoed in President George W. Bushs new foreign policy in that he reacted to the cataclysm through military retaliation and force. Additionally once occupying the lands, the Bush administration chose to assist the Iraqi people and help them acquire the democratic ideals the US holds so dearly.