I chose to review the book, Ideology and the United States. Foreign Policy, by Michael H. Hunt. The reason I selected this text is first and foremost because it assiduously emphasizes (nice word but do you know the 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 is complex. Incidentally, (I don't like this word just to begin with) the term Ideology should be defined, in the words of Michel H. Hunt, as "an interconnected set of beliefs or assumptions that reduces the complexities of a particular slice of reality." in easily understandable terms and suggests appropriate ways to deal with that reality." Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an 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, very effectively, that ideology is the primary driving force behind foreign policy, describes foreign policy as an "elusive subject" (page number?) and inevitably after the conclusion of the book, one can deduce (your word ? Understanding could be better) are complications, but also fascination. In the first chapter Michael H. Hunt proposes 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 foreign policy it is largely an ideology based on race and culture, ultimately the ideological stance of the United States towards revolutions throughout its history. Of course (Instead of "naturally" starting with "Hunt argues", these three reasons are what constitute US intervention in foreign affairs and are rooted in their ideological outlook which was influenced by the Declaration of Independence and, more specifically, from “Common Sense,” which Hunt quotes in the second chapter: “We have it in our power to begin the world anew.” He also discusses the two most important historians on foreign policy, whose works are considered the best on the subject. , George Kennan and William Appleman Williams Since there has been much criticism, Hunt's analysis of the two writers is not innovative, but Hunt provides a more balanced view of the two works, especially Williams' "The Tragedy of American diplomacy", which is seen (by whom?) as the inferior of the two works Hunt, in his brief analysis of “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy,” emphasizes that William's “narrow conception of ideology clashes with his sensitivity to historical complexity. ..elevate. legitimate doubts about its prescription for political change” [2], this view which inherently criticizes Williams' view on ideology in relation to foreign policy, is compelling and intriguing to the reader, Hunt's critique of both the works in the first chapter as well as a discussion on the term Ideology is one of the strong points 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 main reasons, highlighting the complications historians have in evaluating foreign policy. The second chapter, “Visions of National Greatness,” begins with Hunt discussing the rise to prominence of Thomas Paine and his role, through his pamphlet, “Common Sense,” on the central ideological impulse upon which the nation. Paine, later reflecting on the pamphlet, said that he had written it to help men "be free,"[1] yet, on the basis ofDeclaration of Independence and “Common Sense”, the imperialist policy of the United States 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 population growth. Hunt argues that during McKinley's presidency, foreign policy had become “nationalistic,” a nation of greatness had been achieved but at the cost of the United States becoming another imperial power. Hunt's next two chapters (What Chapters?) focus on the underlying theme of race as a means of extraditing foreign policy and the revolutions that impacted America's worldview. Hunt argues that the American's growing belief in himself that all other races are subjugated to them derives from their European ancestors, whose ideas they had thus inherited, essentially "Americans used race to build protective walls against the threatening strangeness of other peoples". An example of racial dogma was that of the view of Latinos, from an American point of view, their animosity towards this “inferior race” was common throughout America, “This belief in Latin America's inferiority proved enduring , although the ambivalence towards the spread of democracy was not" [ 2], the reason for their hatred, the Spaniards, who were seen as "superstitious, obstinate, lazy, cowardly" [3]. The aggressive policy that the United States adopted in its foreign policy in the 20th century was confirmed because most people in the United States had this view of racial superiority. Hunt's arguments are valid (is this your opinion or someone else's?) as they firmly establish the context of the period, why the United States viewed race as a precursor to justifying foreign intervention, the Revolution , while specifically a minor reason as to why ideology forms the basis of foreign policy. Hunt still focuses on his underlying logic..(because a lesser reason who says? Might it be better to just say In the chapter? Hunt focuses on the revolution and that since) the United States was born out of the Revolution, it had a firm stance on positivity of the rebellion and their support was unanimous. what they thought was relevant (your word?) if a country was in turmoil. However, with the growth of communism, (date?) Americans feared internal rebellion, which would eventually cause upheaval. Americans began to view the revolution negatively (when?) and, therefore, to stop the revolution, sanctions were introduced on immigrants entering the country, from a country that was seen as the land of the free, the United States became inhospitable towards those which they considered reactionary. Hunt concludes that the Revolution formed a basis for the polarizing view of "politicians" on foreign policy in the early twentieth century and that it broadened the United States' view on its foreign policy. To consider the book from a historiographical point of view, Hunt first published his book in 1988, following a period in which President Reagan's foreign policy had been compromised by revelations of the Iran-Contra affair, according to the which funds from arms sales to Iran had been diverted to Contra rebels in Nicaragua. The two leading foreign policy historians, Kennan and Williams, both wrote their books in the 1950s, and so their views are considerably more relevant to the Cold War period in which they lived. Need more on historiography here Hunt's take on William's historical analytical view of Foreign Policy is quite critical, even.