Interests, ideals, and interventions: American foreign policy rhetoric, 1898-1989

This study uses Neorealist theory to explore and explain a curious feature of American foreign policy. While American foreign policy is premised on Realist principles, it has often been justified in Idealist terms. These justifications have been derived from the fundamental principles at the core of the American domestic culture, but it is the argument of this study that this Idealism arises for reasons that transcend the particulars of the American experience. This study offers a systemic explanation of this Idealism, one that may apply to all states similarly situated in international systems.; This study' s explanation for Idealist justifications relies on Realist insights about about the relationship between power and ideals. It tests a proposition that challengers in an international system will justify their actions in Idealist terms, while status quo states will rely on more Realist language. It argues that all international systems are bolstered by norms that represent a fusion of universal power imperatives and the domestic values of that particular system's constituent states. In its attempt to challenge the hegemony of the system's dominant states, the challenger uses moralistic arguments to undermine the consensus about the legitimacy of the Realist principles inherent in all international systems.; This proposition is tested by examining the rhetoric used by U.S. presidents to justify American military interventions in Latin America in two periods: the period of the United States' ascent, 1898-1945 and the period of the United States' dominance, 1945-1989. It examines communications of eight presidents during ten interventions and the Inaugural Addresses of all presidents from George Washington to Bill Clinton. It finds that Idealism predominated over Realism in the 1898-1945 period in both intervention rhetoric and Inaugural Addresses, in war and peace, among Republican and Democrats, and it finds that neither rhetorical tradition nor media attention changes this pattern. It finds that Idealism was particularly strong during times of system change. It concludes that these findings are suggestive and warrant comparison to other states that have emerged as challengers in international systems.