'George W. Bush more like T. Roosevelt as opposed to Taft and Wilson Essay\r'

' president George W. crotch hair’s seat September eleventh polity certainly shows enceinte resemblances to President Theodore Roosevelt’s foreign policy more than than that of Taft or Wilson. Roosevelt had a more stern policy, promote the forceful defense of the terra firma and the spreading of democracy and Christian ideals to less well(predicate) countries. This was very more than so a direct correlation to what scrubbing tried to do Taft’s policy accentuate economic ideals in that he argued the US should chip in break money and succor countries elevate their economic berth in order for the promotion of heartsease and prosperity throughout the world. Wilson’s policy emphatic morality, and the â€Å"nice guy” stand efflorescence of how the US should compact out obligations. Consequently, President George furnish’s policy is a better reflection of President Theodore Roosevelt’s policy more than Taft’s or Wi lson’s policy because of the army and political ideals that the two policies share.\r\nPresident Bush’s tin September 11 policy reflects Roosevelt’s is because of the swift, stern actions that Bush’s administration took afterwards the oncomings on the nation. As Bush sent the troops all over to Iraq quickly and in great numbers, the administration sent a honest and stern message. The United States would non stand for an attack on its soil, and those who did so would receive grave penalty for their actions. This message echoes the morals behind the â€Å"big bunk” policy. Just as Theodore Roosevelt once said, â€Å"Speak quiet and carry a big stick.” Theodore Roosevelt be broodved that power was an authoritative and un negateable thing in foreign affairs.\r\nHe excessively noted in his addition to the Monroe precept (called the Roosevelt Corollary) that if any nation in the Western cerebral hemisphere appeared in a political or f inancial situation that would allow for European control, the US should intervene. With an imperialist outlook on the world, Roosevelt made the US a nation that constantly intervened and helped 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 well as when he ventured out and regard the United States in the counterinsurgency of the Philippines all in order to fortify the existence of democracy and Christianity and help the individuals of the nations govern themselves.\r\nThese ideals and policies were mirrored in Bush’s actions when the US troops inhabited the Middle East, and the Bush administration took it upon itself to take advantage of their occupancy of the lands by spreading its ideals of democracy and ‘correct’ political procedures. By doing this, the Bush Administration had essentially identified these location s in the Middle East as lesser fortunate nations, deemed themselves fit to help these regions, and force their ‘help’ early(prenominal) the governments of the regions and to the people. This decision and series of actions greatly resembles the actions and opinions of Roosevelt’s Corollary.\r\nTaft’s policy by contrast, was more of the United States venturing out to foreign land allowing for each foreign nation’s gradual acquiring of political and economic power through US investment in the countries’ infrastructures, which has little to do with Bush’s initial choice to attack the Middle East after September 11. Taft used â€Å"Dollar Diplomacy,” instead of force force. He wanted control and to aid business community in the US, and was in strong favor of declaration problems via economic means rather than militarily.\r\nHe adage his policy as humanitarian, for stabilization improved the living(a) scale and conditions. For in stance, 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 rough supervision over Nicaraguan finances. Bush’s house September 11 policy does 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.\r\nWilson however ground his policy on Morality. Bush’s post September 11th policy did not whole reflect Wilson’s policy because Wilson’s missionary policy aimed more in the direction of desire peace and prosperity by means of creating pathways for institutions to emergence out globally while Bush’s aim after the September 11 attacks was to vindicate forcefully and brutally (neither of which was peaceful). For instance, when the Japanese attempted, in the disreputable Twenty-one Demands (1915), to reduce China almost to the statu s of a Japanese protectorate, he persuaded them to modify their conditions slightly. The ‘ vingt-et-un Demands’ required that China immediately cease its leasing of dominion to foreign powers and to ascent to Japanese control over Manchuria and Shandong (Shantung) among other demands. Such persuasion as impertinent to attack and forcefully making the US point reveals the difference between Bush’s and Wilson’s policy.\r\nConsequently, it is evident that President Bush’s post September 11 policy best resembles Roosevelt’s â€Å"big stick” diplomacy. Roosevelt’s policy was establish on pragmatism as well as the idea of the nation’s obligatory retaliation to threats and attacks on the nation’s 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 Presid ent George W. Bush’s new foreign policy in that he reacted to the tragedy through military retaliation and force. to boot 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.\r\n'