The United States has always considered itself a shining city on a hill, a place that makes the rest of the world better. This is the narrative that many Americans have been sold, that whenever the United States intervenes, it is always for the better of not only that country, but the rest of the world. In spite of this narrative, the United States has not always had the best intentions, and many of their interventions have left lives and countries in ruin. Many of the darker parts of American interventionism come to bear in the book Empire’s Workshop by Greg Grandin, which discusses American imperialism in Latin America. Despite the fact that this book assumes a certain level of expertise on United States policy in Latin America, it is still
…show more content…
The United States had many reasons for intervening in world affairs, but perhaps the most important was a sense of moral high ground. There has always been a constant need for the American values of democracy to spread across the world, and that has ultimately manifested itself in truly horrifying and disturbing ways. While Grandin brings forth plenty of examples from all sides of the political spectrum to help explain this policy, they all believed there was a constant belief in the, “righteousness of U.S. purpose and power was indispensable in the execution of effective diplomacy” (Grandin 77). While this has caused dictators to stay in power, and has helped contribute more to human suffering, it is nonetheless always something pursued by many administrations from the 20th century to the present. This stems from perhaps a certain sense of nationalism, but regardless this continually seems to be a major goal of US foreign policy, and was ever present in Latin America in the 20th century. Grandin describes that in Central America, “nationalists once again cast the Cold War as a moral struggle between good and evil” (Grandin 81). This creation of good and evil, whether fact or fiction, creates a moral imperative to intervene, regardless of what the situation actually is on the ground. This takes the region …show more content…
Something that is often hard to keep track of and notice is how political messaging can drastically affect public opinion on nearly every issue. Grandin does a terrific job of highlighting various changes in messaging, and showing how it created a moral imperative to intervene.Most notably was an increase in appeal to emotions and feelings of American idealism, which manifested itself like wildfire in the Reagan administration. President Reagan most noticeably described the battle between the Sandinistas and the Contras as fighting for, “‘freedom in the American tradition’ and the idea that American ‘history requires support to freedom fighters’” (Grandin 129). This statement as Grandin later notes is nearly impossible for many to argue, and this once again took out of context a revolution in Nicaragua that was significantly more complex than the former President was making it out to be. This led to an assumption that all countries in Latin America needed help and that the United States was the only one who could provide it. This assumption, throughout Central America would be costly, and perhaps most notably in Mexico. In Mexico, this type of messaging would combine with ruthless “Reaganomics” and would ultimately lead, “rising unemployment, and [of] the gutting of organized labor’s bargaining power” as well
The United States had many reasons for intervening in world affairs, but perhaps the most important was a sense of moral high ground. There has always been a constant need for the American values of democracy to spread across the world, and that has ultimately manifested itself in truly horrifying and disturbing ways. While Grandin brings forth plenty of examples from all sides of the political spectrum to help explain this policy, they all believed there was a constant belief in the, “righteousness of U.S. purpose and power was indispensable in the execution of effective diplomacy” (Grandin 77). While this has caused dictators to stay in power, and has helped contribute more to human suffering, it is nonetheless always something pursued by many administrations from the 20th century to the present. This stems from perhaps a certain sense of nationalism, but regardless this continually seems to be a major goal of US foreign policy, and was ever present in Latin America in the 20th century. Grandin describes that in Central America, “nationalists once again cast the Cold War as a moral struggle between good and evil” (Grandin 81). This creation of good and evil, whether fact or fiction, creates a moral imperative to intervene, regardless of what the situation actually is on the ground. This takes the region …show more content…
Something that is often hard to keep track of and notice is how political messaging can drastically affect public opinion on nearly every issue. Grandin does a terrific job of highlighting various changes in messaging, and showing how it created a moral imperative to intervene.Most notably was an increase in appeal to emotions and feelings of American idealism, which manifested itself like wildfire in the Reagan administration. President Reagan most noticeably described the battle between the Sandinistas and the Contras as fighting for, “‘freedom in the American tradition’ and the idea that American ‘history requires support to freedom fighters’” (Grandin 129). This statement as Grandin later notes is nearly impossible for many to argue, and this once again took out of context a revolution in Nicaragua that was significantly more complex than the former President was making it out to be. This led to an assumption that all countries in Latin America needed help and that the United States was the only one who could provide it. This assumption, throughout Central America would be costly, and perhaps most notably in Mexico. In Mexico, this type of messaging would combine with ruthless “Reaganomics” and would ultimately lead, “rising unemployment, and [of] the gutting of organized labor’s bargaining power” as well