Which of the following diplomatic strategies in the best for the US to follow and what makes it a superior system? What makes the other systems unwise?
-- TR's Big Stick Diplomacy
-- Taft's Dollar Diplomacy
-- Wilson's Moral Diplomacy
>>1934281
Why not all three?
>>1934288
has to be one, they contradict in some places
>>1934281
TR's only works when your stick is intimidating enough. Moral diplomacy is nice but even Wilson kind of knew it was too limiting for a real superpower and ended up interfering in random nation's affairs that would contradict this theory. Dollar diplomacy is a tightrope, you really have to make sure you are betting on the right side or you stand to lose a lot of money and make an enemy. I guess Wilson's is the more preferred but it only works when you have a loose definition of what "aligns" with your nation's beliefs.
>>1934302
So wouldn't TR's work the best due to a rejuvenated military?
>>1934302
>TR's only works when your stick is intimidating enough.
It's also worth mentioning that it's difficult to get your way by intimidation alone in an era when every other world power has nuclear weapons. This innovation has essentially made big stick diplomacy obsolete for all but the third world.
>>1934281
And for these reasons we need a new paradigm.
>>1934318
Forgot to add a time period limit, discussion is US up to 1918
bump
>>1934318
This is true, also I forgot to add that intimidating people generally makes them apprehensive towards helping you out if you would need it and could result in generating widespread hate that could manifest itself in increased terrorism. So there's that.
>>1934389
The same thing can be said of Wilson's policy, which lead to interventions in Mexico in 1914, Haiti from 1915 -1934, Dominican Republic in 1916, Cuba in 1917, and Panama in 1918.