George W. Bush more like T. Roosevelt as opposed to Taft and Wilson Essay Example for Free

George W. pubic hair more like T. Roosevelt as opposed to Taft and Wilson Essay death chair George W. chaparrals post folk 11th polity certainly shows great resemblances to President Theodore Roosevelts opposed insurance policy more than that of Taft or Wilson. Roosevelt had a more spartan policy, encouraging the forceful defense of the farming and the spreading of democracy and Christian ideals to less fortunate countries. This was very much so a select correlation to what chaparral tried to do Tafts policy emphasized economic ideals in that he argued the US should lend out money and help countries elevate their economic status in ramble for the promotion of peace and prosperity throughout the world. Wilsons policy emphasized morality, and the nice guy point of view of how the US should carry out obligations. Consequently, President George Bushs policy is a better watching of President Theodore Roosevelts policy more than Tafts or Wilsons policy because of the arm ament and goernmental ideals that the two policies share.President Bushs post September 11 policy reflects Roosevelts is because of the swift, stern actions that Bushs administration took after the attacks on the nation. As Bush sent the troops over to Iraq quickly and in great numbers, the administration sent a candid and stern message. The United States would not stand for an attack on its soil, and those who did so would receive grave punishment for their actions. This message echoes the morals tail the spoilt Stick policy. Just as Theodore Roosevelt once said, Speak softly and carry a big stick. Theodore Roosevelt believed that power was an important and unavoidable thing in foreign affairs.He also noted in his addition to the Monroe Doctrine (called the Roosevelt Corollary) that if any nation in the Western Hemisphere appeared in a semipolitical or fiscal situation that would allow for European break, the US should intervene. With an imperialistic outlook on the world, Roo sevelt make 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 involved the United States in the counterinsurgency of the Philippines all in order to fortify the worldly concern of democracy and Christianity and help the individuals of the nations govern themselves.These ideals and policies were mirrored in Bushs actions when the US troops live the centre 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 right(a) political procedures. By doing this, the Bush Administration had essentially identified these locations in the Middle East as lesser fortunate nations, deemed themselves fit to help these regions, and force their help past the organizations of the re gions and to the people. This decision and series of actions greatly resembles the actions and opinions of Roosevelts Corollary.Tafts policy by contrast, was more of the United States venturing out to foreign land allowing for each(prenominal) foreign nations gradual acquiring of political and economic power through US investment in the countries infrastructures, which has little to do with Bushs initial choice to attack the Middle East after September 11. Taft used Dollar Diplomacy, instead of armed services force. He wanted control and to aid businessmen in the US, and was in strong favor of solving problems via economic means or else than militarily.He saw his policy as humanitarian, for stabilization improved the living scale and conditions. For instance, in Nicaragua during 1912, the government would default on its debts, which might mean European intervention. The US offered to loan money (by private men) if the US could have some supervision over Nicaraguan finances. Bushs post September 11 policy does not mirror this because he was in favor of military force and making it cognize militarily that the US could not be attacked without grave punishment.Wilson however based his policy on Morality. Bushs post September 11th policy did not wholly reflect Wilsons policy because Wilsons Missionary policy aimed more in the direction of seeking peace and prosperity by means of creating pathways for institutions to branch out globally while Bushs aim after the September 11 attacks was to retaliate forcefully and brutally (neither of which was peaceful). For instance, when the Japanese attempted, in the notorious Twenty-one Demands (1915), to reduce china almost to the status of a Japanese protectorate, he persuaded them to modify their conditions slightly. The Twenty-One Demands required that China now cease its leasing of territory to foreign powers and to ascent to Japanese control over Manchuria and Shandong (Shantung) among other demands. Such view as opp osed to attack and forcefully making the US point reveals the difference between Bushs and Wilsons policy.Consequently, it is evident that President Bushs post September 11 policy best resembles Roosevelts big stick diplomacy. Roosevelts policy was based on pragmatism as well as the idea of the nations obligatory retaliation to threats and attacks on the nations 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 President George W. Bushs new foreign policy in that he reacted to the tragedy through military retaliation and force. Additionally once occupying the lands, the Bush administration chose to assist the Iraqi people and help them wear the democratic ideals the US holds so dearly.