"The New York Times" hailed John B. Judis's "The Emerging Democratic Majority" as "indispensable." Now this brilliant political writer compares the failure of American imperialism a century ago with the potential failure of the current administration's imperialistic policies.One hundred years ago, Theodore Roosevelt believed that the only way the United States could achiev"The New York Times" hailed John B. Judis's "The Emerging Democratic Majority" as "indispensable." Now this brilliant political writer compares the failure of American imperialism a century ago with the potential failure of the current administration's imperialistic policies.One hundred years ago, Theodore Roosevelt believed that the only way the United States could achieve peace, prosperity, and national greatness was by joining Europe in a struggle to add colonies. But Roosevelt became disillusioned with this imperialist strategy after a long war in the Philippines. Woodrow Wilson, shocked by nationalist backlash to American intervention in Mexico and by the outbreak of World War I, began to see imperialism not as an instrument of peace and democracy, but of war and tyranny. Wilson advocated that the United States lead the nations of the world in eliminating colonialism and by creating a "community of power" to replace the unstable "balance of power." Wilson's efforts were frustrated, but decades later they led to the creation of the United Nations, NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank. The prosperity and relative peace in the United States of the past fifty years confirmed the wisdom of Wilson's approach.Despite the proven success of Wilson's strategy, George W. Bush has repudiated it. He has revived the narrow nationalism of the Republicans who rejected the League of Nations in the 1920s. And at the urging of his neoconservative supporters, he has revived the old, discredited imperialist strategy of attempting to unilaterally overthrow regimes deemed unfriendly by his administration. Bush rejects the role of international institutions and agreements in curbing terrorists, slowing global pollution, and containing potential threats. In "The Folly of Empire," John B. Judis convincingly pits Wilson's arguments against those of George W. Bush and the neoconservatives.Judis draws sharp contrasts between the Bush administration's policies, especially with regard to Iraq, and those of every administration from Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman through George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The result is a concise, thought-provoking look at America's position in the world -- then and now -- and how it has been formed, that will spark debate and controversy in Washington and beyond. "The Folly of Empire" raises crucial questions about why the Bush administration has embarked on a foreign policy that has been proven unsuccessful and presents damning evidence that its failure is already imminent. The final message is a sobering one: Leaders ignore history's lessons at their peril....
|Title||:||The Folly of Empire: What George W. Bush Could Learn from Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson|
|Number of Pages||:||245 Pages|
|Status||:||Available For Download|
|Last checked||:||21 Minutes ago!|
The Folly of Empire: What George W. Bush Could Learn from Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson Reviews
A basic history of the anti-imperialist movement and the development of Wilsonian foreign policy in the United States. Useful because it's a crucial debate that never seems to happen on a broad scale. Ultimately one-sided--I keep looking for the book that really sets the anti-globalization movement and the liberal Wilsonians against each other in a substantive way. But it really shows how hard it seems to be for Presidents to take any progressive foreign policy positions at all--Theodore Roosevelt came into office as an imperialist, left office having soured on imperialism, and spent the rest of his life criticizing Woodrow Wilson for not being imperialist enough. And Woodrow was pretty much just a jerk.
For those interested in learning how American foreign policy has gone so disastrously wrong in the 20th century, look no further than Folly of Empire. A short and readable study of two proponents of empire--Wilson and Roosevelt--who later expressed serious misgivings and regret about the legitimacy of intervention and nation-building. Too bad Bush was a C student--maybe if he'd actually studied history, he wouldn't have made their same mistakes, and the mistakes of Eisenhower, Johnson, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, and Reagan too!
Both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson realized the negative effects of Imperialism in the Philippines and Mexico: that instead of promoting peace and democracy, colonialism resulted to war and tyranny.
Standard Bush-bashing, which to me is entertaining and maddening at the same time.
Very good but disturbing too.