Titlebook: ;

Bravado

lity of morality and principles; belief in the capacity and right of people to self-government; and belief in the unique mission of the United States to promote liberty at home and abroad—onto those of the preceding era of “progressive imperialism”. Understood in this context, Wilson’s “crusade” to

享乐主义者

a broader argument about how the United States could maintain and extend its power in a fundamentally altered world. This period constituted a transitional one in which political leaders, intellectuals, and public opinion attempted to navigate between honoring long-established principles of statecr

NATAL

judicial

lay and tension between the “exemplarist” and “vindicationist” faces of American power. It argues that systemic pressure posed by the threat of Soviet expansion on the Eurasian continent combined with the domestic politics of anti-statism and liberal political culture to forge the grand strategic sy

hypnotic

起皱纹

at Carter mounted a Jeffersonian critique of détente, and of containment more broadly, by arguing that the means of grand strategy had in fact corrupted its ends whereby the “inordinate fear of communism” had encouraged the United States to forgo its principles to support unsavoury but “anti-communi

animated

It notes that the end of the Cold War presented the United States with a grand strategic dilemma: would it use this opportunity to achieve, in Walter Lippman’s phrase, a “solvent” grand strategy that brought into balance “the nation’s commitments and the nation’s power” or would it seek to embed its

Cupidity

小争吵

eign policy as it is the first time since the 1940s that the nation has elevated to the White House someone who so overtly questioned the central tenets of the “vindicationist” face of American power. The chapter argues that Trump’s “America First” foreign policy channels contradictory “exemplarist”

蚀刻术

Power, Ideas, and Choice: Explaining Change in American Grand Strategy,ent and change over time than purely structural theories of grand strategy. In contrast to structural realist frameworks that emphasize the primacy of the structure and architecture of the international system in determining state behavior, neoclassical realists define their research agendas by dist