Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Regional Shifts and US Foreign Policy - Coggle Diagram
Regional Shifts and US Foreign Policy
Regionalism
Regional diversity causes conflict and divergent ideals of foreign policy
1890s: North-East vs. the South with the West as a swing vote in the "Great Debate" over Latin American and Pacific Basin imperial expansion
1930s: North-East and South vs. West over pursing internationalist position to assert force in halting the spread of fascism in Europe
Modern Era: Blue (North-East and Pacific Coast) States vs. Red (South and Mountain West) States over response to globalization, terrorism, and post-Cold War international order
"At the regional level political conflicts are grounded in conflicts of economic interest" (142)
Partisanship grows where economic stake and influence from international openness differs
Regions less threatened by international competition are more likely to have aggressive, expansionist policies
States more reliant and susceptible to international economic behavior are more likely to have restrained foreign policy views
The 1890s "Great Debate"
Regional foreign policy was dictated by concern for economic implications
Where should the United States look to for internationalist connections?
Agricultural South sought stronger trade with industrial Europe
Industrial North-East sought expansion and military might in Latin America and Asia
Middle-man West ultimately sided with Republican, North-Eastern powers for expansion on Pacific and coalition for domestic policies
How should the United States exert international power: through aggressive expansion with naval power or through strengthened trade relations with European imperial powers?
Primary policy issues:
naval spending, territorial expansion, tariff reform
South feared economic repercussions with assertive presence and interference in European imperial affairs
Should the United States depart from isolationism and seek international trade to combat surplus-induced economic lulls?
Generally agreed upon was the idea that internationalism could act as a quick-fix solution
Not agreed upon was the where and how of internationalism
The 1930s
International economic depression and post WWI European decline afforded US foreign policy options
Should the United States assume an active role in the reconstruction of the world economy and lead in preventing the spread fascism in Europe and Asia?
West argued in favor of nationalist economic spread over internationalism
The West held very little stake in international markets
"rural West felt comparatively less urgency in aiding the Allies or expanding the nation's capacity to project military power overseas" (149)
Break in coalition with North-East would last and lead to today's "Red America"
North-East and South argued in favor of internationalism
A new, strong coalition spanning the Mason-Dixon Line which lasted for the next several decades
Roosevelt's Southern popularity and high dependance on exports along with North-Eastern growth as the hub of international manufacturing forged the alliance
Modern Era Sectionalism
Cold War containment policies held consensus across Mason-Dixon Line that fell with the fall of the Soviet Union
United States is now divided moreso than ever in the last 100 years across party lines which boast bases in different sections
Red America
South and Mountain West: focused on "the projection of American power and primacy of national security" (151)
pushing American Power
Blue America
North-East and Pacific Coast: focused on "reducing America's geopolitical footprint and investing greater resources in domestic programs" (151)
Seeking multilateral diplomacy and international institutions
Battle over foreign policy is battle along party lines over national political economy
Obama's presidency called for foreign policy bipartisanship which never occurred and the divide has only deepened since