The United States entered the twentieth century as a burgeoning economic superpower that had yet to assert itself politically on the international stage. Reluctant to enter World War I (WWI), the United States had, by the war’s end, assumed a lead role negotiating the Treaty of Versailles. President Woodrow Wilson hoped to use the negotiations to promote American ideals of democracy and free trade while securing a lasting peace. However, instead of fostering global economic and political stability, the Versailles accord produced a punitive settlement that slowed post-war recovery. Following the treaty, Wilson’s dream of the U.S. as an international political leader lacked popular support, and domestic issues remained the primary interest of
…show more content…
policymakers deaf to the stabilizing influence of a century of British liberal economic strategies. U.S. foreign engagement during the 1920s sought “involvement without commitment,” and “vigorously promoted its interests while scrupulously guarding against entanglements.” Historian Adam Tooze argues the international engagement policies of the 1920s were “unilateral and exceptionalist.” Exceptionalism, or the belief in the moral and political superiority of the United States, provided policymakers a foundation for engagement with the international world on U.S. terms that served U.S. interests. Instead of a global perspective that supported expanding markets, U.S. engagement focused on international goals that buttressed, or did little to harm, short-term domestic success, often at the expense of long-term stability. The U.S. supported aid to rebuild European economies that could provide export markets for U.S. goods so long as that support had limited economic impact domestically. Indeed, fear of public outcry over the tax increases needed to alleviate the crushing European war debt led the U.S. to underfund recovery efforts that may have produced positive long-term domestic economic benefits. Despite President Hoover’s belief that the United States should utilize its vast economic resources to help the world, he yielded to domestic political pressure that assumed protecting short-term domestic interests best served the
policymakers deaf to the stabilizing influence of a century of British liberal economic strategies. U.S. foreign engagement during the 1920s sought “involvement without commitment,” and “vigorously promoted its interests while scrupulously guarding against entanglements.” Historian Adam Tooze argues the international engagement policies of the 1920s were “unilateral and exceptionalist.” Exceptionalism, or the belief in the moral and political superiority of the United States, provided policymakers a foundation for engagement with the international world on U.S. terms that served U.S. interests. Instead of a global perspective that supported expanding markets, U.S. engagement focused on international goals that buttressed, or did little to harm, short-term domestic success, often at the expense of long-term stability. The U.S. supported aid to rebuild European economies that could provide export markets for U.S. goods so long as that support had limited economic impact domestically. Indeed, fear of public outcry over the tax increases needed to alleviate the crushing European war debt led the U.S. to underfund recovery efforts that may have produced positive long-term domestic economic benefits. Despite President Hoover’s belief that the United States should utilize its vast economic resources to help the world, he yielded to domestic political pressure that assumed protecting short-term domestic interests best served the