I chose to review the book, Ideology and the United States. Foreign Policy, by Michael H. Hunt. The reason why I chose this text is above all because it assiduously underlines (good word but do you know its meaning?) the relationship between the ideological motivations of the United States and its foreign policy and the correlation between ideology and the United States. Foreign policy, a complex issue. By the way, (I don't like that word, just start with) the term ideology should be defined, in the words of Michel H. Hunt, it is "an interrelated set of beliefs or assumptions which reduces the complexities of a particular slice of reality.” in easily understandable terms and suggests appropriate ways to deal with this reality. »Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Ideology can be a destructive tool in the hands of a nation that cannot distinguish between an imperialist foreign policy and a humanitarian foreign policy. Hunt argues, to great effect, that ideology is the primary driving force in foreign policy, he describes foreign policy as a "slippery subject" (page number?) and inevitably after the book's conclusion one can deduce (your word? Understand might be better), these are complications, but also an attraction. In the first chapter, Michael H. Hunt advances three main reasons why ideology is the driving force of foreign policy: first, that the United States is a "nation of greatness" [1] , second, that politics Foreign is largely an ideology based on race and culture, and ultimately the United States' ideological stance on revolutions throughout its history. Naturally (instead of "naturally" starting with "Hunt supports"), these three reasons constitute what constitutes US intervention in foreign affairs and are rooted in its ideological vision which was influenced by the Declaration of Independence and most notably by Thomas Paine's "Common" which Hunt cites in the second chapter, "We Have the Power to Start the World Again." He also discusses the two most prominent foreign policy historians, including works are considered the best on the subject, George Kennan and William Appleman Williams Given the numerous reviews, Hunt's analysis of the two writers is not groundbreaking, but Hunt gives a more balanced view of the two works, in particularly "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy", by Williams, which is considered (by whom?) as the inferior of the two works Hunt, in his brief analysis of "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy", emphasizes that the "conception. William's narrow view of ideology, colliding with his sensitivity to historical complexity... raises legitimate doubts about his prescription for political change"[2], a view which inherently critiques William's view Williams on ideology in relation to foreign policy, is compelling and intriguing to the reader, Hunt's critique of both works in the first chapter as well as a discussion of the term ideology is one of the strengths of the book. (If you are not referring to what Hunt thinks of Keenan, otherwise only one book is mentioned.) Hunt devotes a chapter to each of the three basic reasons, while emphasizing the difficulties historians face in evaluating the policy foreign. The second chapter, "Visions of Foreign Policy Greatness", begins with Hunt discussing Thomas's risePaine and his role, through his pamphlet “Common Sense” on the fundamental ideological impulse on which the Nation was built. Paine, later reflected on the pamphlet, stating that he had written it to help men "be free" [1] and yet, based on the Declaration of Independence and "common sense", the policy US imperialist dictated the antithesis. of the word “Free”. (any examples?) Hunt then goes on to discuss America's transformation from a nation ruled by a few to the most powerful nation in the world as well as a growth in population. Hunt argues that under McKinley's presidency, foreign policy had become "nationalist", a nation of greatness had been created, but at the cost of transforming the United States into another imperial power. Hunt's next two chapters (Which Chapters?) focus on the underlying theme of race as a means to extradite foreign policy and on the revolutions that impacted the American worldview. Hunt argues that Americans' growing belief that all other races are subservient to them stems from their European ancestors, whose views they had thus inherited, essentially "Americans used race to build walls of protection against foreignness." threatening other peoples. An example of racial dogma is the view of Latinos: from the American perspective, their animosity toward this "inferior race" was common throughout America: "This belief in Latino inferiority proved enduring , even if ambivalence towards the spread of democracy has not. » 2], reason for their hatred, towards the Spaniards, considered as “superstitious, obstinate, lazy, cowardly” [3]. The aggressive policy that the United States adopted in its foreign policy in the 20th century was justified because most people in the United States shared this view of racial superiority. Hunt's arguments are strong (is this your opinion or someone else's?) because they firmly establish him in the context of the times as to why the United States saw race as a precursor to justifying their foreign intervention, the Revolution, while notably being a lesser reason as to why ideology forms the basis of foreign policy. Hunt always focuses on his underlying rationale. a lesser reason who says it? Maybe it would be better to just say In the chapter? Hunt focuses on revolution and this is because) the United States was born of revolution, it had a strong stance on the positivity of rebellion, and its support was unanimous for what it deemed relevant (your word?). if a country was in crisis. However, with the growth of communism (dates?), Americans feared domestic rebellion, which would eventually cause upheaval. Americans began to view the Revolution negatively (when?) and so, to stop the revolution, sanctions were taken against immigrants entering the country. the country, from a country considered the land of the free, the United States became inhospitable to those it deemed reactionary. Hunt concludes that the Revolution provided a basis for "policy makers" who polarized their views on foreign policy at the turn of the 20th century and that it broadened the United States' view of its foreign policy. To view the book from a historiographical perspective, Hunt first wrote: his book in 1988, at a time when President Reagan's foreign policy had been compromised by the revelations of the Iran-Contra affair, during from which funds from arms sales to Iran were diverted to the rebels.