Home > POLITICAL SCIENCE: U.S. > U.S. DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY. >

U.S. DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY.

Examines the period 1960-1974. Argues that U.S. made effective progress domestically in the area of civil rights which gave minorities & women greater freedoms & rights. Contends U.S. foreign policy did not promote progress abroad. U.S. focus on the Cold War and Vietnam policy. Policies of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon.

Details

Citations 13

Citation Style MLA

Sources 9

Pages 9

Price: $36.00

From the Paper

This study will argue that between 1960 and 1974 the United States was an effective champion of progress at home, but did little to promote it abroad. Specifically, with respect to progress at home, political and social leaders and activists advanced the cause of civil rights during this period. The civil rights movement affected for the better the lives of blacks and other minorities and women, groups which had been restricted in their freedoms and rights in the past. The reason for the lack of the promotion of progress abroad was that the United States was fixated in those years on the Cold War. Foreign policy was based not on the desire to help the people of other nations politically, socially or economically, but rather to fight the communists, particularly the dreaded Soviet Union, and to fight them specifically in the poor nations of the Third World. Those

What Kennedy would have done inVietnam is a matter of debate, but Stephen Ambrose writes with respect toEisenhower in Vietnam that his "outstanding achievement was to avoid war"(Ambrose 151). Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society. A Great Society? Specifically, with respect to progress at home, political andsocial leaders and activists advanced the cause of civil rights during thisperiod. Kennedy's NewFrontier, argues that Kennedy was an effective leader. NewYork: Knopf, 1988.----------------------- 1 Kennedy fought for civil rights as far back as the 196 convention,when he got a civil rights plank put into the Democratic platform(Bernstein 75). In the fight to continue New Deal social programs, federal aid toeducation, and the fight against unemployment, Kennedy did not win everybattle with Congress, but he was fighting for these changes until he wasassassinated. That failure, and those incompatibilities, are at theheart of the difference between the domestic policy in the United Statesfrom 196 to 1974 and the foreign policy of the nation in those same years.From Kennedy to Johnson to Nixon, domestic policies were put in place andadministered which started the long process toward greater social,political and economic justice at home. Violence did occur, two people were killed, but Meredithwas admitted and the civil rights struggle moved on, leading to the civilrights bill which was shoved through Congress by Johnson and by the urgentnational need to complete what Kennedy had begun. In any case, for Johnson and Nixon, there is no doubt that theobsession with a foreign policy based on Cold War ideology undermined thegood they did at home. been able to step out of the Cold Warbox, they would have seen that the Vietnamese were fighting the war, notthe Soviet and Chinese Communists, and that what the Vietnamese peoplewanted in terms of progress was to have all foreign invaders leave forever--the French, the Japanese, the French again, and, finally, the Americans,who did leave for good in 1975. by an excess of certainty, and liable to make mistakes on thesame scale as its triumphs (Kaiser 495-496). in Vietnam. Nixon's opening of ties with China was certainly a departure fromCold War ideology (Matthews 256), although it can be argued that againNixon was trying to divide the two communist superpowers, China and theSoviet Union. New York: Norton, 1989.Bernstein, Irving. In the area of fightingdiscrimination in employment, the Southern Congressmen fought hard to stopKennedy (Bernstein 54). Johnson writes thatKennedy was a man who built hope for peace and freedom at home and abroad.In life as well as in death, Johnson says, Kennedy made people believe thatanything could be accomplished to better the lives of the nation's andworld's people (Kennedy 7-8). The policy did not work and the U.S. claimed to be trying tohelp), was the root of that emotional and irrational policy. Both Kennedy and Johnson raised public expectations to what mighthave been unreasonable levels with respect to their domestic policies andprograms, so that history might judge the results of their efforts moreharshly than they should be judged. The question is to what degree did Kennedy actually accomplish hisdomestic goals. Irving Bernstein, in Promises Kept: John F. sought "progress" for the nation orthe people of Vietnam. For all the bluster from Johnson and Nixon that the Vietnam War wascarried out by the United States in order to save democracy and freedom forSouth Vietnam, the fact remains that the government of South Vietnam wasnot a democratic representative government, was in fact a puppet governmentof the United States, and was corrupt and ineffective. Whatever Nixon's conservative campaign criticism's of Johnson'sdomestic policy might have been, in fact Nixon "expanded" the programs ofthe Great Society. Johnsonpushed a number of social programs for progress through Congress after theassassination of Kennedy, arguing that the passage of legislationinstalling such programs would honor the memory of Kennedy who had begunthem. The end of the Eisenhower era was also thebeginning of a sense that a new and dynamic leadership and set of policieswere about to be institutionalized in the government under the young newPresident. Bernstein examines theimportant domestic issues of the early 196 s, and he concludes that in allof them Kennedy demonstrated effective leadership. New York: Penguin, 1993.Andrew, John A., III. leaders before and after him, orwhether he would have had the courage and will to reverse that policy inVietnam, leaving the war for the South Vietnamese to win or lose on theirown. American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of theVietnam War. However, even though it looked as if he would facecertain defeat, he still fought for civil rights legislation. Johnson andNixon cared not about "progress" for the Vietnamese people but only aboutkilling Vietnamese and bombing them into submission: "We had dropped sevenmillion tons of bombs in Vietnam, twice as many as we dropped in World WarII; that was five hundred pounds of explosive for every human being inVietnam" (Wright 268). The Cold War ideology, which led American leaders from Eisenhower toNixon down the road to American disaster in Vietnam (and far worse disasterfor Vietnam and the Vietnamese people whom the U.S. These issues includedcivil rights, taxation, unemployment, the continuation of New Dealprograms, education, Medicare, and the Peace Corps. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1991.Gross, Bertram, ed. Promises Kept. The civil rights movement affected for the better the lives ofblacks and other minorities and women, groups which had been restricted intheir freedoms and rights in the past. Nixonentered the Presidency on a campaign rooted in foreign policy, not domesticissues. In fact, theAmerican opposition to the war can be fixed in part to the callousdisregard of President Diem for the Buddhist monks who burned themselves todeath in protest against the injustices of Diem (Kaiser 4). Almost everythingJohnson and Nixon did for the people in the domestic area was forgottenbecause of their obsession with Vietnam. This led James Meredith to become the first black studentat the University of Mississippi. finally left indefeat in 1975.Today, Vietnam is thoroughly Communist, and American corporations arestumbling over one another trying to get their share of the Vietnamesemarket. Chicago: IvanR. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2 .Kennedy, John F. This study will argue that between 196 and 1974 the United Stateswas an effective champion of progress at home, but did little to promote itabroad. The only "progress" pursued in Vietnam was the progress of anideological war between the forces of the United States and the SovietUnion. Kennedy set up high expectations, which perhaps could not bemet by any President, especially in the area of civil rights. The Johnson-Nixon "decision" to pursue war in Vietnam could even be said to be nodecision at all, but rather a drift based on Cold War assumptions whichhave since proved wrong if not insane. However, as with Kennedy and Johnson, the progress on the domesticfront continued under Nixon, just as Vietnam continued to dominate foreignpolicy. Lyndon Johnson's War. Of course, the Vietnam War came to obsess Nixon, just as it earlierobsessed Johnson and undermined his Great Society. dimmed the enthusiasm"for the policies of the Great Society. Foreign policy was based not on the desire tohelp the people of other nations politically, socially or economically, butrather to fight the communists, particularly the dreaded Soviet Union, andto fight them specifically in the poor nations of the Third World. After all, the issue of racism at alllevels of society is still alive early in the 21st century, so howeffective could the Kennedy-Johnson domestic efforts for progress in the196 s have been? Had the leaders of the U.S. Johnson and thenation simply could not support a war abroad and the kind of expensivedomestic programs proposed by Johnson. David Kaiser writes as historian, Naval War College Professor, andveteran of the Vietnam War. New York: Popular Library, 1964.Matthews, Christopher. The Great Society is often criticized today for its lack of long-termeffects and its extravagant spending on domestic issues, but John A. . Nixon took over the White House from a Johnson who had been so beatenby the Vietnam struggle that he chose not to run for re-election. This change did in fact take place with respect to civil rightsunder Kennedy, and then the Great Society under Lyndon Johnson. It is ironic that Johnson's major foreign policy--war in Vietnam--wasthe primary reason that the Great Society began to fail. could win through firepower, which proved to be adisastrous decision. Kennedy was assassinated beforehis own Vietnam policy became clear, though there are arguments on bothsides of the question, whether he would have committed American troops,continuing the Cold War obsession of U.S. In other words, many of the great strides for progress inhuman terms at home were lost because of the Cold War policies that werepursued in Vietnam. Johnson, in the Foreword to Kennedy's The Burden and the Glory, notesthe role Kennedy played in advancing the cause of freedom and peace, indeveloping and executing domestic and foreign policy. Thosenations were the very nations that needed help the most, that neededprogress the most, but instead of helping them, the United States (and theSoviet Union) engaged in a struggle which drained the energies of allinvolved--the United States, the Soviet Union, and the poor Third Worldnations. Not caring about the people ofVietnam, but being driven by a fear and hatred of communism, like leadersbefore and after him, undermined the good Johnson had done on behalf of themost needy Americans at home. "In strictly economic terms theexpanding war" became more and more "competitive with Great Societyprograms" (Gross 27). Nonational security issue was at stake for the U.S. . Kennedy & Nixon. No objective historian oranalyst can argue today that the U.S. AndrewIII in Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society writes that in fact the 1964Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act were crucial laws whichmarked turning points in the civil rights movement. Meanwhile, in Vietnam, an unjustwar was waged and escalated and undermined so much of that domestic good. The U.S. In civil rights, Kennedy faced a Congress which resisted his domesticprograms, especially Southern Congressmen. New York: Basic Books, 1968.Kaiser, David. Johnson and Nixon, however, pursued the war and escalated it,believing that the U.S. Rise to Globalism. The Burden and the Glory. When Meredith's effort led to the stand-off between the federal government and the state, Kennedy stood his ground.He ordered the Secretary of Defense to enforce the court order admittingMeredith, and used the armed forces and the national guard to do so(Bernstein 82). The outcome of the war was utter disaster for theUnited States on every level--over 5 , lives lost, billions of dollarslost, world stature left in tatters, and a small, proud and courageousnation and its people torn by years of war with a nation which had nobusiness being there in the first place. Despite thefact that Johnson did push through many domestic programs, including theCivil Rights Bill of 1964, it was not enough to stop the build-up ofradical dissidents among both white and black youth. . Works CitedAmbrose, Stephen E. The example from this period which encapsulates this Cold Warobsession and the emphasis on war rather than progress was Vietnam. Bernstein arguesthat many of the domestic programs started by Kennedy were completed byJohnson, but he also says that Johnson's success in Congress was in part aresult of the love of the people for Kennedy. The reason for the lack of thepromotion of progress abroad was that the United States was fixated inthose years on the Cold War. It can certainly be argued that Nixon was not concerned withbettering the lives of the Chinese people, but was instead concerned withpolitical, economic, and ideological objectives. As Bertram Gross writes, it was clear in 1966 that"the expanding dimensions of the Vietnam War . Wright writes that "the only Johnson program he killedwas a Job Corps summer camp." Nixon increased Social Security payouts byover 5 percent, raised expenditures on the arts by 5 percent, reduced oreliminated taxes for poor families and raised the minimum wage for workers.Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency, increased the jobsprogram enrollment, expanded the school lunch program, and, in general,continued a domestic policy which was clearly based on promoting progressat home (Wright 23 -231). sought only to advance the war of ideologyand control of the world's people and resources against the Soviet Union.For the U.S., the tragedy was not only the loss of more than 5 , deadand billions of dollars, it was also the death and/or diminishment of manyof the social programs of the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon domestic agendas.That death or diminishment was the direct result of the expenditures of theVietnam War. The tragedy of the United States in the period from 196 -1974 was theVietnam War, but it was even more the tragedy for the Vietnamese people,who had been at war with the French and Japanese before the Americans tookover increasingly from the French after 1954. He declares that the war changed him primarilyby demonstrating that the United States "was not a new and uniquecivilization marching ever forward down the road to progress, but a greatnotion like every other, driven, at bottom, more by emotion than by reason,cursed . Other social programs,Andrew says, not only did help millions of Americans live better lives,they were also expressions of Johnson's desire to right the racial wrongsof the past (Andrew 184-185). Perhaps Johnson's success with his Great Societyprograms led him to believe that he could do whatever he wanted to do, buthe could not find success in Vietnam no matter what he did. The year of 196 marked the seminal election which brought JohnKennedy into the White House. Vietnam continued to dominate the politics of the United Statesthroughout the Nixon era, until the Watergate scandal consumed the nationand the White House and led to Nixon's resignation in 1974. . Dee, 1998.Berman, Larry. The argument can still be made byold Cold Warriors like Ronald Reagan, however irrationally, that Vietnamwas a "noble cause," but in fact it was an insane war based on fear andhatred of communism, with ignorance about the Vietnamese people and thewill of the "enemy" to defend its homeland against foreign invaders. Such a perspective is not fair, however, because thoseefforts were only the beginning of a long and perhaps never-ending strugglefor justice for all Americans. New York: Simon & Schuster,1996.Wright, Lawrence. The thesis of Larry Berman's book is "the repercussions fromPresident Johnson's failure to address the fundamental incompatibilitybetween his political objectives at home and his military objectives inVietnam" (Berman xi). In the New World: Growing Up With America, 196 -1984.

Ask a question about this product

Also Search for U.S. DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY. in all categories

Related Essays

FOREIGN POLICY FORMULATION.
Roles of politicians & diplomats in developing & implementing foreign policy: president, state department, ambassadors.
China foreign policy toward US since 2001
Chinese Foreign Policy and the U.S.: An evaluation and overview from 2001 to 2004. Focus is on foreign policy goals of the Chinese vis a vis the U.S., and a description of specific developments over the period.
Federal Deficit & National Debt
Examines various aspects of the causes of, possible solutions for, & potential impacts of the national debt & federal budget deficit.
"NATION OF SHEEP, A" (WILLIAM LEDERER).
Examines 1961 work's portrayal of Americans as victims of ignorance & misinformation on foreign policy issues.
3 US History essays
3 short essays on US history: foreign policy, World War II and civil rights; the Cold War.
U.S. Foeign Policy with Mexico
This paper looks at the United States foreign policy with Mexico, and the problems with it. It particularly explores the illegal immigrant problem and the consequences this has on the American economy. It discusses the convoluted, and disorganized American foreign policy with Mexico, which is actually 67 different policies, none of them coordinated.
U.S. Policy toward Cuba
Presents an Argument that the U.S. policy towards Cuba after Fidel Castro took power has not been prudent and effective and has been a failure.
Liberalism and Conservatism
Discusses ideological shifts in American history from 1932 to 2000 between liberalism and conservatism. Contends the changes are supported by results of American Presidential elections. Political orientation of U.S. Presidents.
AMERICAN-IRAQI FOREIGN POLICY.
Covers the post-Gulf War to 2000 time period. Argues that the Clinton Administration had no clear goals in Iraq, and pursued a reactionary policy. American foreign policy objectives; difficulties facing U.S. policy. Issue of sanctions on Iraq. Saddam Hussein's actions in weakening United Nations sanctions. Weakness of U.S. policy toward Iraq.
Toyota & Government Policy
Reviews the close support & assistance that Toyota has always received from the Japanese government & the resultant conflict that has created between the Japanese & US governments.

Become a Premium Member. Buy all pre-written essays for only $2 per page! AND Get $1 of store credit for every $10 you spend!

Testimonials

This makes all the difference.

The staff and writers are true professionals. They are honest and helpful. If you order from them, you are in very good hands.

I'm so happy!

I used to have such a terrible time with writing, but not any more. This company has taken one of my most stressful college experiences and made it easy!

The Best Service Ever!

I really do appreciate Research Assistance. I'm not a good writer and the service really gets me going in the right direction. The staff gets back to me quickly with any concerns that I might have and they are always on time. Thanks a million for your excellent service.

Subjects

Show all subjects...

U.S. DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY.

Related Essays

Related Pages

Your cart

Testimonials

Subjects