How does President Taft’s dollar diplomacy phrase compare to President Roosevelt’s “big stick” diplomacy?
(1 point)
Responses
Substituting dollars represented spending minimal money and resources to end conflict peacefully, whereas “big stick” diplomacy relied on military resources to end conflict.
Substituting dollars represented spending more money on military intervention to build on “big stick” diplomacy policies.
Substituting dollars represented utilizing economic policy in exchange for the use of military threat, whereas “big stick” diplomacy relies on the threat of military force.
Substituting dollars for bullets represented using military funds to build and expand U.S. economic interests in Latin America, whereas “big stick” diplomacy used military funds and resources.
Substituting dollars represented utilizing economic policy in exchange for the use of military threat, whereas “big stick” diplomacy relies on the threat of military force.
How does President Taft’s dollar diplomacy phrase compare to President Roosevelt’s “big stick” diplomacy?
(1 point)
Responses
Substituting dollars represented spending minimal money and resources to end conflict peacefully, whereas “big stick” diplomacy relied on military resources to end conflict.
Substituting dollars represented spending more money on military intervention to build on “big stick” diplomacy policies.
Substituting dollars represented utilizing economic policy in exchange for the use of military threat, whereas “big stick” diplomacy relies on the threat of military force.
Substituting dollars for bullets represented using military funds to build and expand U.S. economic interests in Latin America, whereas “big stick” diplomacy used military funds and resources.
Substituting dollars represented utilizing economic policy in exchange for the use of military threat, whereas “big stick” diplomacy relies on the threat of military force.
The correct response is:
Substituting dollars represented utilizing economic policy in exchange for the use of military threat, whereas “big stick” diplomacy relies on the threat of military force.
To understand how President Taft’s dollar diplomacy compares to President Roosevelt’s “big stick” diplomacy, we need to look at the strategies employed by each president.
President Roosevelt's "big stick" diplomacy was a policy that relied on the threat of military force to achieve foreign policy objectives. This approach emphasized the use of the U.S. military as a deterrent and instrument of power in international affairs. It was characterized by the idea of "speaking softly and carrying a big stick," meaning that diplomacy should be backed up by the potential use of force.
On the other hand, President Taft's dollar diplomacy involved substituting dollars for bullets. It was an approach that relied on economic policy and financial investment to advance U.S. interests abroad, particularly in Latin America. Instead of using military intervention, Taft's administration believed that investing capital in foreign countries would promote stability and create opportunities for economic growth. The aim was to encourage economic cooperation and avoid conflicts by using financial incentives rather than military threats.
So, the main difference between the two approaches is that "big stick" diplomacy relied on military resources and the threat of force, while dollar diplomacy relied on economic policies and financial incentives as a means of achieving foreign policy objectives.