Abandoning American Neutrality

During the first 18 months of World War I, Woodrow Wilson sought to maintain American neutrality, but as this carefully argued study shows, it was ultimately an unsustainable stance. The tension between Wilson's idealism and pragmatism ultimately drove him to abandon neutrality, paving the way for America's entrance into the war in 1917.

During the first 18 months of World War I, Woodrow Wilson sought to maintain American neutrality, but as this carefully argued study shows, it was ultimately an unsustainable stance. The tension between Wilson's idealism and pragmatism ultimately drove him to abandon neutrality, paving the way for America's entrance into the war in 1917.

""Mud, Blood, and Ghosts" is a thoughtful, creative, and deeply researched story about the origins of Populism in America and its anti-immigrant and racist attitudes"--

Considers (74) S. 3474.

This volume contributes to the Routledge Seminar Studies history series by providing a concise narrative overview of the ideas and foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson. It focuses on Wilson’s response to the First World War and his efforts to formulate a new international system, while also outlining Wilson’s policies toward different parts of the world. The book shows how Wilson shaped the direction of the 20th century in areas such as global governance, nationalism, decolonization, and international relations theory. In doing so, the book introduces the reader to the many debates over Wilsonian foreign policy. With a target audience of college undergraduates and non-experts, readers will gain a better understanding of Wilson’s vision for the world, his administration’s approaches to foreign policy, particularly during the First World War, and the global impact of his program.

Against Aid presents a complex and diverse history of opposition to US foreign aid spending, explaining why critics challenged aid and how they had a significant impact on US foreign policy. Foreign aid was an integral part of US foreign policy during the Cold War. US leaders hoped aid spending could modernize other societies, create steadfast allies, and promote global stability, but there was always considerable opposition. Jeffrey F. Taffet skillfully examines aid’s opponents and shows how they questioned the assumptions that the United States needed to be globally engaged. He argues that aid’s opponents forced changes in US aid programs that dramatically reduced overall spending and limited support for dictatorships. Taffet also makes a larger argument, that in fighting aid, opponents were challenging essential views about the nation and its global role that transcended debates about how much to spend. They were arguing about the appropriate use of national power and the essence of the nation’s purpose. This book is essential reading for courses in American politics, international studies, and history of American foreign policy. Students will benefit from the broad, chronological scope and accessible narrative of the text.