Ever since the United States established itself as a nation, foreign policy has been key to the well being of its economy and citizens. But, yet some argue that foreign policy has lost its importance in the minds of politicians leading the nation over time. Joyce Kaufman states in her book “A Concise History of U.S. Foreign Policy”, that after the nineteenth century the US bent its ideas of national interest, and ignored the nation’s history that clearly shows a strong foreign policy leads to more prosperity. Another supporter, Walter Mead in his essay on foreign affairs, argued that US leadership is vulnerable to catastrophic decisions based on public opinion, and that a stronger focus on the nations history could help politicians create
…show more content…
These policies are vital to the health of any country because they state the national interests of the nation and therefore draw boundaries, physical and ideological, that the government should not cross in their negotiations, along with promoting trade. Also, nations are able to reap higher profits from trade by having a strong national focus on foreign policy. Mead proves that increasing foreign trade held major benefits for the US economy in the nineteenth century, “Between 1802 and 1860, the value of American cotton exports rose from $5 million a year to $192 million a year,” and, during this century it was imperative America had access to these foreign ports, which fueled expansion into trade with Asia and Africa. (Pg. 168) This increase in trade showed America that it was now part of an interconnected and globalized world, where if one country’s economy declined, the US would suffer as well. Mead adds that financial disasters abroad affect those in the United States as well, and that European economic affairs are linked with some of the depressions America had experienced (pg.170). In an intertwined world, foreign policy dictates how a country will go about using its power in seek of attaining its goals in trade, warfare, and negotiations. Kaufman explained it simply, “All of this [production] is possible because of trade, and trade is foreign …show more content…
In addition to Kaufman’s argument, Mead states that having a lack of direction in foreign policy allows for short-term investment goals and public opinion to have significance in determining foreign action. Robert Kohls identifies a focus on short-term investments in foreign policy goals as “future orientation: Valuing the future and the improvements Americans are sure the future will bring means that they devalue the past and are, to a large extent, unconscious of the present.”(“The Values Americans Live By”) The idea of future orientation explains why Mead believes that short-term goals weaken policy, and allow public opinion to inform policy makers. Mead refers directly to the “isolationist” stance the US followed in the nineteenth century, and points out that despite this policy, the public often pushed the government to become intertwined in the affairs of Europe (sometimes more than the government would have liked.) (pg.175) This connects to the theory, Professor Datta prescribed in Lecture 3: that foreign policy has become devalued in Americans overtime because they typically believe that US action is pursuing ethical means and ends for the good of the country and world. On the contrary, as Mead and Kaufman have pointed out:
These policies are vital to the health of any country because they state the national interests of the nation and therefore draw boundaries, physical and ideological, that the government should not cross in their negotiations, along with promoting trade. Also, nations are able to reap higher profits from trade by having a strong national focus on foreign policy. Mead proves that increasing foreign trade held major benefits for the US economy in the nineteenth century, “Between 1802 and 1860, the value of American cotton exports rose from $5 million a year to $192 million a year,” and, during this century it was imperative America had access to these foreign ports, which fueled expansion into trade with Asia and Africa. (Pg. 168) This increase in trade showed America that it was now part of an interconnected and globalized world, where if one country’s economy declined, the US would suffer as well. Mead adds that financial disasters abroad affect those in the United States as well, and that European economic affairs are linked with some of the depressions America had experienced (pg.170). In an intertwined world, foreign policy dictates how a country will go about using its power in seek of attaining its goals in trade, warfare, and negotiations. Kaufman explained it simply, “All of this [production] is possible because of trade, and trade is foreign …show more content…
In addition to Kaufman’s argument, Mead states that having a lack of direction in foreign policy allows for short-term investment goals and public opinion to have significance in determining foreign action. Robert Kohls identifies a focus on short-term investments in foreign policy goals as “future orientation: Valuing the future and the improvements Americans are sure the future will bring means that they devalue the past and are, to a large extent, unconscious of the present.”(“The Values Americans Live By”) The idea of future orientation explains why Mead believes that short-term goals weaken policy, and allow public opinion to inform policy makers. Mead refers directly to the “isolationist” stance the US followed in the nineteenth century, and points out that despite this policy, the public often pushed the government to become intertwined in the affairs of Europe (sometimes more than the government would have liked.) (pg.175) This connects to the theory, Professor Datta prescribed in Lecture 3: that foreign policy has become devalued in Americans overtime because they typically believe that US action is pursuing ethical means and ends for the good of the country and world. On the contrary, as Mead and Kaufman have pointed out: