Thinking of the term “ideology”, it is somewhat difficult to come up with a definition. The concept of ideology seems to encompass so many ideas; it would be hard to narrow them down. Michael H. Hunt defines ideology as “an interrelated set of convictions or assumptions that reduces the complexities of a particular slice of reality to easily comprehensible terms and suggests appropriate ways of dealing with that reality” (Hunt, pg xi). Hunt’s definition is broad, which seems to make it applicable to many aspects of life. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary offers a slightly more specific definition of ideology: “the assertions, theories, and aims that constitute a political, social, and economic program”.
Ideology, even simplified, is a complex undertaking. Further, it is even more difficult to pinpoint the relationship between ideology and foreign policy. Hunt believes that historians are reluctant to take up the task of exploring the elements of ideology and its connection to foreign policy. He feels that too often, they admit that policy makers are influenced by ideology, but do nothing to discern what actually makes up that ideology. I believe part of the reason historians do not delve into the core reasons behind ideology is that the concept is abstract. It is simpler to look at the tangible causes in relation to foreign policy decisions. Historians may also be dealing with their own personal ideologies, and find it difficult to distinguish their own ideologies and perceptions from those related to foreign policy.
In his analysis, Hunt lays out what he believes are the three driving forces behind ideology as it relates to U.S. foreign policy. The first ideological component defined by Hunt is the vision of national greatness (and with this, the concept of liberty). Second, Hunt believes that U.S. foreign policy is driven by the ideology of race. Americans view other people in relation to their place on the so-called racial hierarchy. Last, Hunt examines the ideology associated with revolutions throughout history. Hunt feels that these three core elements, woven together, form the basis of ideology in relation to foreign policy decisions.
Hunt’s first core ideological concept is the American vision of national greatness. He starts chapter two with a quote from Thomas Paine: “We have it in our power to begin the world all over again” (Hunt, pg. 19). When Americans came to this land, they had a clean slate. They had the opportunity to shape the world (or at least, their part of it) to suit them. Every decision they made set into motion other decisions that would lay the framework for American policy, both foreign and domestic. In the pursuit of national greatness, liberty plays an important role.
Thomas Jefferson intertwines liberty and national greatness. He believes that by being separate from England, America is better able to protect her liberties. He also feels that by obtaining more territory, American liberties are expanded and protected. The protection of American liberties allows for the preservation of the American way of life. Jefferson’s preferred view of American life is the agrarian lifestyle. He felt that the more space we had, the more farming could be done, and the more prosperous our honest, farming citizens would be. Jefferson’s interlocking view of liberty and national greatness is evident in the Louisiana Purchase. Gaining this land had many ramifications. First, it showed that through negotiation, the United States was able to gain something it wanted, in this case, territory. Second, we expanded our liberties by spreading them across the continent. Finally, we were achieving national greatness by gaining more and more territory, power, and influence in the Western hemisphere.
Alexander Hamilton held different views than Jefferson about how to achieve national greatness. Hamilton believed that the United States would gain national greatness over time. The country needed to be headed by a “vigorous national government” (Hunt, pg. 24) and protected by a strong navy. The United States should have a strong financial system, as well as a good relationship with Britain in order to function on the world stage. Hamilton was less concerned with the concept of liberty than Jefferson.
However, Jefferson’s acquisition of territory, and his idea that white Americans would one day populate the continent, went against the ideals of a nation governed by liberty. But, were Jefferson’s aspirations for a nation focused on liberty ever a real possibility? Could the United States be a symbol of liberty throughout the world, when its own government seemed to be driven by greed for prosperity and power? Much of his actions as President were more aggressive than he intended; some he believed were not decisions that he had the authority to make, (like gaining the inhabitants of the Louisiana Territory) but he did so anyway.
One of the strongest ideological concepts for national greatness was the idea of Manifest Destiny. Many believed that the mission of the United States was to spread liberty (through territorial expansion) and serve as an example to the world. They felt the United States should be a “city on the hill”, representing God and the right way to live, so that the rest of the world could look to them for guidance. The idea of Manifest Destiny was that God had put the white Americans here to civilize and populate the continent. We were destined by God to be a country built upon liberty and the ascension to national greatness through territorial expansion. In our strive for national greatness, liberty and other ideals were often compromised. Not just our own, but those of other people we took advantage of to increase our status.
Hunt’s next ideological concept in relation to the history of American foreign policy is race. From our country’s inception, Americans have treated other people differently based on their skin color. A hierarchy of race existed in the mindset of our leaders, and this was a driving force behind our policies. It was assumed that certain races were fundamentally better than others on all levels.
By viewing other races as inferior to our own, we were able to justify our treatment of people. All of the actions we took against darker-skinned people could be seen as acceptable. Darker-skinned people were less intelligent than us, unable to do the things we could, including running their own country. When Americans came to this country, it was not a vast, empty wilderness. There were people here, the American Indians. They had an established lifestyle, tribal systems, and tribal governments. White Americans systematically worked to destroy the Indian culture to gain land and the so-called national greatness. We fought wars with the Indians, made and broke treaties, and introduced our diseases and dangerous lifestyles to them. Hunt states, “White Americans had not inherited the fabled empty continent. Rather, by their presence and policies, they emptied it” (pg. 53). Those Indians we could not force to assimilate, we annihilated. We pushed them onto reservations. We took their land as our own. All of this was justified because they were lower on the racial hierarchy.
We continued to look at the world through our racially-tinted spyglass. Our goal of white hegemony allowed us to assume a paternalistic role over other countries. While we believed in self-determination, we felt that countries belonging to darker-skinned people were incapable of running a government. We wanted to help our “little brown brothers” in the Philippines become civilized and able to function in the modern world (Hunt, pg. 81). We felt we had no option other than to occupy the country until the day came, if ever, that they could be responsible for their own affairs.
Orientals were also victims of American racism. The Chinese were viewed as “the most dishonest, low, thieving people in the world” (Hunt, pg. 69). By immigrating to America, they were taking jobs away from strong, deserving Americans. American policy, seeking to curb the flow of Orientals to the United States, worked to exclude these groups from coming into the country.
Americans typically had two views for people of other races. There was a positive view, when things were going well, and a negative view, when the people were being unruly and uncooperative. One example Hunt gives is the American view of Latinos. Many Americans perception of Latinos was influenced by the negative feelings we had toward the Spaniards. Americans were appalled that white Spaniards had interracial relationships with Indians and blacks to “produce degenerate mongrel offspring” (Hunt, pg. 59). The negative American view of Latinos portrayed them as “superstitious, obstinate, lazy, cowardly…” and on and on (Hunt, pg. 59). This stereotype typically applied to Latino men. On the other hand, Latino women were often pictured as helpless victims who needed saving from the savage Latino men in their country. The different viewpoints allowed Americans to perceive people based on the situation.
Viewing themselves as superior allowed Americans to accept the ill treatment of inferior races. Americans preferred to explain their protectorate actions in other countries as simply helping the people become acculturated. They were just doing their duty as whites to help lesser people. They were remaining loyal to their race. In order to continue feeling superior, they had to form a basis of what was inferior. Skin color was the easiest and most obvious trait to discriminate against. It gave American leaders the peace of mind in knowing their aggressive foreign policy actions in other countries could be justified.
Hunt’s final ideological concept is that of revolution. Americans inherently supported revolutions. Ours was a country born of revolution, and we were proud of our accomplishments as a young nation. We felt that the road to independence and liberty was paved with revolutionary ideals. In order to achieve liberty, “the common man had no choice but to make whatever sacrifice was necessary to overcome that resistance and bring an end to oppression” (Hunt, pgs. 94-95). Our early leaders felt that revolution was a natural process in gaining a government that promoted liberty and national greatness. If a country’s leaders were not doing what was necessary to allow their country to be in high status and respected around the world, then revolution was expected.
However, when Americans glimpsed what revolution really entailed throughout the world, they were shocked. The French Revolution, at first respected for its overthrowing of a monarchy, soon became an exceedingly violent struggle that many Americans were offended by. Americans have a mindset of what a revolution is. We have an idea of why it should be fought, how it should be fought, and what the outcome should be. When revolutions do not conform to our standards, Americans are disappointed.
Americans, who had fought a successful revolution and gained their independence, felt they were an inspiration to people around the world to be free. The U.S. was “inviting the oppressed nations of the earth to do as we have done, and to be as fee and happy as we are” (Hunt, pg. 102). Immigrants often came to America when the revolutions in their oppressed nations were not going well. Americans became concerned that the “seeds of revolution” in their country would lead to discontent in the United States. To prevent revolutionary actions in our country, American leaders restricted immigration and closely watched those who may incite reactionary ideas.
American foreign policy began to change from passive to active. Whereas before, the United States would only grant diplomatic recognition, offer asylum or support worthy revolutions, they were now being drawn into a more active role (Hunt, pg. 107). In the Philippines, “U.S. interests and tutelary obligations” were “at odds with ‘native’ demands for liberty and independence” (Hunt, pg. 107). Our policy toward revolutions around the world began to focus more on supporting U.S. interests and U.S. liberties, rather than those of the revolutionary nation. We were willing to compromise a foreign country’s liberty and freedom in order to protect our interests. Our policy of being a protectorate to other nations in the Western hemisphere centered on this. Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine established an international police force that would intervene in the Latin American nations in order to keep Europe out (thus protecting our own interests).
Policy makers believed our cultural superiority gave us the right to decide what revolutionary tactics and outcomes were the “successful” ones. We were able to judge other nations because we were of a superior race and we had conducted a proper and successful revolution. The policies made to deal with revolutions around the world had domestic ramifications as well. American leaders wanted to prevent the seeds of revolution from planting in America. Their policies reflected this, and worked to keep such influences out of the United States.
In chapter six, Hunt discusses the “contemporary dilemma” in United States foreign policy. He tells us that every decision our leaders have made from the very beginning have set the precedence for decisions our current leaders make. Hunt says, “An ideology that has been tested, refined, and woven into the fabric of the national consciousness had helped propel twentieth-century U.S. foreign policy ever deeper into the thicket of international politics and warfare” (pg. 172). We are more ensnared in the problems of foreign nations today than we ever have been. Our foreign policy ideology based on national greatness, hierarchy of race, and the perils of revolution is still in place today.
Our inability to change our policies because of these ideologies has made problems (both foreign and domestic) even worse. By actively pursuing the burden we have placed upon ourselves as the dominant nation, we are more focused on foreign policy than domestic. Domestic livelihood, and, in essence, our very liberty is put at stake defending our position as the world’s superior nation. We are so bent on changing the world that our own country suffers.
Americans are bred to stereotype the world. We believe we have a nation that is superior to all others, in all aspects. Everything we do around the world is ultimately for our own interests. We would not try to reshape the world to fit our standards unless we were going to benefit from it. Our ethnocentric ideals shape our foreign policy as much today as they have since our nation’s birth. We choose to defend our position as this superior nation, and, in the process, we are allowing our nation’s domestic problems to grow. The United States is so caught up in being the biggest and the best, that we lose sight of the lessons we learned on the journey to the top. I believe Hunt is right on with his ideological conceptions. Our policies are shaped by national greatness, race, and reaction to revolutions. I also agree that our policies need to change. The focus needs to be shifted from trying to uphold all the countries in the world, to bettering our domestic situation. If our domestic situation continues to deteriorate, we will be unable to help ourselves or anyone else. Instead of pursuing national greatness, we need to pursue domestic greatness. Then we can help others who need it (if it is in their interest as well, not just ours).
Source: “Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy” by Michael H. Hunt
