American Exceptionalism and the Undemocratic Spread of Democracy: Cold War Period to the 1990’s

I. Introduction 

“The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them.” (Wilson, 1917)

The words of President Woodrow Wilson delivered to U.S congress on April 2, 1917, seeking a Declaration of War against Germany, have echoed for the past two centuries in the narrative American foreign policy has adopted when justifying its actions of political intervention: to spread democracy, liberal ideals, and act as a global policeman. Theoretically, the narrative has internalized the idea and established it as an absolute truth within American politics that liberal democracy is the only viable political possibility for a safe world. It proclaims that efforts must be made, and are justified to contain any peril that might jeopardize or stray away from these ideals. (O’Brien, 2019) The narrative holds that the promotion of human rights, the nurturing of liberty, popular sovereignty, republicanism and voting, and general welfare are the propellers for political action. (Anderson, 2004) The ideals are often enacted in justification towards foreign policy that caters towards establishing the United States in a respective hegemonic position, yet the veracity of the narrative is left vulnerable when potential threats to the status-quo of American power arise.

The standard United States Foreign policy has adopted is driven by the idea of American exceptionalism, a self-congratulatory characterization of America as a place of hope, democracy, and a role model to the rest of the world. The term suggests an implicit sense of supremacy and elitism, that America is the most vigorous country, and above all other nations in its unique and unparalleled notability and moral high ground, and therefore carries some responsibility to maintain itself in this position, act as a global policeman, and expand its values of democracy. Prominent leaders, despite the differences in their political ideologies, have continually carried this sense of American exceptionalism in their rhetoric. (Rogers, 2018) Presidents like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Raegan have used the idiom “a shining city upon a hill”, derived from John Winthrop's sermon guiding pilgrim settlers in Massachusetts towards puritanism, to call upon the democratic and remarkable values, worthy of universal admiration, upon which the country was built. (Pauline, 2015)The idea of the United States as the “leader of the free world” or an “indispensable nation” has been consistent in American discourse from its early years, from early figures like Thomas Jefferson calling the country “The Empire of Liberty” to highlight the importance of spreading freedom, and Abraham Lincoln describing the nation as the “last best hope on Earth” to current politicians and leaders. (Walt, 2011) 

Much of the rhetoric presented around American exceptionalism and the pursuit of world democracy is merely theoretical and idyllic, as history has shown that the nation uses this narrative to mask and justify undemocratic actions, presenting a paradox: in what it claims to be a pursuit for the spread of democracy, America reverts to undemocratic practices. This paradox then reveals the true nature of U.S behavior- to remain as a hegemon and preserve the status quo, yet it pursues this goal by using democracy as a justification, oftentimes undermining democracy both abroad and within its boundaries. (Walt, 2011) The nation’s behavior has contradicted Wilson’s words, in which its policy falsely alleges to stand by, by the overthrowing of democratically elected leaders in Guatemala and Iran, the subversion of democratic practices within the nation during the Cold War period with the Vietnam War and the House of Un-American Activities Committee, and the lack of involvement during catastrophic events encompassing deep disregard towards human life like the Rwandan Genocide.

The Cold War period, a post-World War 2 condition lasting from 1947- 1991, presented geopolitical rivalry between the Soviet Union, promoters of communist ideology, and The United States and its allies, who deemed communism as “evil” and a threat to world order and American power. (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019) The United States immediately established the importance of setting a democratic world, taking on the mentality of “pay[ing] any price, bear[ing] any burden” as John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address in 1961 called for, referring to how the US would do anything for the success and survival of liberty - and as seen by how events came to fruition, actions were to be taken even if the establishment of the democratic world came at the expense of democracy itself, masked by the pursuit of democracy. The United States is interested in “democracies” that are self-serving. (Kennedy, 1961)

The commencement of the Cold War caused a “red scare” in the West, where the political climate, particularly in the 1940s-50s, caused intense fear of the threat posed by communism, driven by the idea that the USSR aimed to exert dominance upon the world, challenging the American hegemonic position. Winston Churchill’s speech in 1946, describing the divide between USSR, its influence, and the West as an iron curtain, echoed the mentality taken up by the US in its foreign policy: communism is dangerous and unpredictable, they pose a threat to peace and the powerful American status quo, and there is a need to fight back. (Churchill, 1946)

In 1950, President Truman received The NSC-6, a National Security Council report enacted by The Defense Department, the State Department, the CIA, and other interested agencies, that recommended adopting a policy of containment- the use of military force to deter communist expansionism anywhere it seemed to be occurring, amongst the recommendation to expand military both in conventional forces and nuclear arsenal. Containment was America’s Cold War policy for the next two decades, and served as backing for US involvement across the globe, aiming to stop communism from expanding. (Nitze, 1950) The policy aligned with the ideals behind “the spread of democracy” and acted as a pillar to back the undemocratic actions that would precede its adoption. 

II. Undermining Democracy Abroad

Suffrage, and the right of the people of the nation to elect who will represent them in a fair manner, sits at the core of democracy- the narrative the U.S claims to represent. Nonetheless, during the Cold War period, the nation took it upon itself to overthrow a number of democratically elected governments, to then support more violent regimes, claiming that these governments represented possible threats to the nation in furthering Soviet power, even though the governments posed no direct threat to territorial integrity and political independence and overwhelming nations suggest that it left nations in a less democratic positions. 

Two clear examples that illustrate American covert action masked behind “world security” claims, in order to preserve the status quo and economic interests were facilitated by Eisenhower’s “New Look”, his ideology towards the Cold War, which looked for the CIA to carry out secret or covert actions against governments or leaders "directly or indirectly responsive to Soviet control”. (Bauer, 2019) Overwhelming evidence shows that both coup d'etats, in Guatemala in 1954 and Iran in 1953, encompassing the overthrowal of democratically elected governments for support towards right-wing quasi-dictatorships that committed a number of violent acts toward their people, were driven by the desire to protect the profits of corporations that supported U.S economic interests- The United Fruit Company and The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The negative effects of the coup have left the nations bearing consequences to this day. (Forsythe, 1992)

“The tragedy of modern Guatemala owes its origins to U.S. foreign policy.” argues Juan Gonzalez in his excerpt, “Bodies for Bananas” claiming that CIA-sponsored coup in 1954 carved the path towards the longest and bloodiest civil war in Central American history. At the commencement of the century, Guatemalan leaders favored the interests of American corporation, The United Fruit Company, and prominent private landowners above those of its own people. President Ubico’s regime (1931-1944) essentially forced, through tax incentives and vagrancy laws, the struggling Mayan indigenous community to work the lands for governmental and corporate projects, and engaged in undemocratic practices like persecuting or jailing dissenters, to which America turned a blind eye on given that its political interests were not on the line.

Inspired by America’s very own Franklin D. Roosevelt, a middle-class intellectual coalition aimed to spur his New Deal liberalism ideals into a democratic movement. The support and pressure of the working-class population and trade unions eventually lead to the first democracy in the nation, Ubico’s resignation, Juan José Arévalo’s presidency that worked towards aiding the oppressed working class by installing a minimum wage and universal suffrage, and the presidency of Arevalo’s precursor and close ally Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán. In line with the working class’s desires and promising to follow Arevalo’s footsteps by reevaluating land ownership issues in the nation, which was a large cause for the country’s economic troubles, Arbenz won the election in 1951 with large support. (Gonzalez, 2011) Nevertheless, his policies, which redistributed unworked land to landless individuals in an effort to alleviate poverty soon clashed with U.S economic interests. 

The democratically elected presidencies concluded that the majority of Guatemala’s most important potential asset, workable land, was owned by only 2% of landholders- much of it belonged to the UFCO, and remained in a crude state, leaving the Guatemalan working class at a deep disadvantage. Arbenz then began to employ policies to redirect the economy from pseudo-feudalism towards representative capitalism, like Decree 900, which called to redistribute unused lands of sizes greater than 224 acres to local peasants, providing landowners with government bonds and economic compensation. Despite the immediate economic relief the democratic government brought to 500,000 families, and the large public support, America’s interests were threatened when expropriated land was compensated 1.2 million USD, an amount based off pre-Decree 900 tax declarations instead of the 16 million American State Department proposed. President Eisenhower, advised by former partners of UFCO’s main law firm, Secretary of State and CIA Director John and Allen Dulles, then authorized “Operation PBSuccess”, a coup operation involving CIA military and psychological strategy to overthrow Arbenz and support the military dictatorship of Carlos Castillo Armas, the first of many U.S-backed authoritarian regimes in Guatemala, despite an illegal rise to power, violence, and years of unparalleled government terror. The coup was criticized all over the world, strengthening the anti-U.S. sentiments in Latin America, to which the CIA responded with Operation PBHISTORY, which failed to find evidence of Soviet influence. (Streeter, 2000) The nature of US involvement hid behind the premise that it acted in accordance to democratic ideals and in the quest of freedom yet Soviet influence was never proven, and economic interests were overwhelmingly apparent- leaving Guatemala’s people to a long-lasting state of violence, economic misery, and suffering, far from democratic.

The Iranian coup and overthrow of democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 followed a similar narrative to that of Guatemala- American economic strengthening by obtaining a share of Iran’s oil wealth and weakening of the nation’s democratic values and well being, hidden behind, as historians would call the “slim and highly unlikely” possibility of Soviet involvement. In 1951 Mossadegh brought forth a bill to nationalize Iran’s oil due to discontent with British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), deemed by politicians and the general public as “exploitative and a vestige of British imperialism”. The oil industry had only provided small profits for Iran given that the company had full control of Iranian oil reserves, and refused to cooperate with the Iranian government. Upon the nationalization, Britain prompted an economic boycott, and in August 1953 upon the alliance between British Winston Churchill and U.S president Eisenhower, the CIA orchestrated Operation Ajax to establish the monarchical, military rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. (Gasiorowsi, 1987)

 The CIA participated in highly undemocratic practices to employ the mission such as exerting pressure on the Shah to align with their desires and participating in bribes compelling street thugs, clergy, politicians, and Iranian army officers towards taking part in a propaganda campaign to overthrow the elected prime minister. CIA's declassified documents show that they paid several feared mobsters to stir up the political climate, including breaking and entering Mosaddegh's home and inciting street riots. Upon his overthrowal, Mosaddegh was imprisoned for three years and spent his lifetime in house arrest. The United States profited from Iran’s oil- and once again ripped democracy off the hands of a nation in order to advance its economic desires. (Gasiorowsi, 1987)

III. Undermining Democracy at Home

The American exceptionalist notion of “the land of the free” was put into question during the red scare period when The U.S. compromised civil liberties by carried out investigations on multiple individuals and entities, including everyone from federal employees to Hollywood celebrities that could have ties to communism. Truman’s Loyalty Order, which mandated that all federal employees be analyzed to determine whether they were sufficiently loyal to the government, and compiled a large extent of far-reaching accounts of protests, strikes, and “subversive” organizations, has been described by historians as a “witch hunt” and a “ weapon of hysteria attacking law-abiding citizens”. (Teoharis, 1971) The dismissal rate was minute in comparison to the number of individuals whose civil rights were violated by being deeply investigated without adequate grounds- of over five million federal workers that underwent screening, 2,700 were dismissed and 12,000 resigned. (Truman, 1951)

Similarly, the enactment of the House Un-American Activities Committee, another investigative entity targeted to uncap disloyalty from private citizens, public employees, and organizations suspected of having Communist ties can be seen as a direct attack on free thought- particularly through the actions taken in regards to Hollywood individuals. (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019) A witness list of 43 Hollywood figures was created to investigate communist infiltration in the industry, of which 19 refused to comply as they argued the investigation was a violation of their First Amendment right to free speech and thought. Ten objectors then were imprisoned for “Contempt of Congress”. Wealthy producers and individuals allied with HUAC and persecuted progressive thought, blacklisting actors, writers, and cartoonists, and even caused figures like Dalton Trumbo to unfairly lose his job for over ten years. Blacklisted Lion Stander criticized HUAC for directly undermining democracy. "I know of a group of fanatics who are desperately trying to undermine the Constitution of the United States by depriving artists and others of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness without due process of law” he argued. The individual rights on which the American exceptionalist narrative is so proudly built upon, and what the government used to justify foreign intervention during the Cold War proved to be hypocritical as it was ripped apart from within the nation's boundaries with unwarranted investigations and affliction of free expression. (Pete, 2018) 

The Vietnam War is another example of how the United States undermined democracy at home in what it claimed to be a fight against communism abroad. The “domino theory”, a prominent ideal during Cold War Times which believed that if one country in the region came under the influence of communism, then the surrounding countries would follow in a domino effect, was a major drawing force for US involvement in the Vietnam War in supporting South Vietnam and the opposition to contain, what the US considered to be communist Ho Chi Minh. Minh was fighting from liberation from French Colonial power more than attempting to establish a communist dictatorship in Vietnam, nevertheless, The US’s Cold War narrow-minded understanding that equated anything other than Western ideals with a threat to hegemony, could only see Ho as a communist menace to be stopped before the rest of Southeast Asia would fall to communism. Not only was the U.S entering a war with a lack of understanding of the political and military climate, compromising the lives of thousands of troops, but the theory that led to the war was flawed in of itself. Although Eisenhower expressed the strategic importance of South Vietnam, claiming that the loss of Vietnam to communist control would lead to similar communist victories in neighboring countries in Southeast Asia, and elsewhere (India, Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, and even Australia and New Zealand), and that the possible consequences of the loss [of Indochina],” were “just incalculable to the free world”, in hindsight, communism failed to spread throughout Southeast Asia with the exception of Laos and Cambodia. (Fincher,1980) The flawed premises in which the war was based on set the precedent to the years of tragic involvement in the war, resulting in lie after lie on behalf of leaders to avoid compromising the romanization of America as a remarkable nation, lack of respect towards human life and troops, lack of transparency, and politicians acting on behalf of self-serving interests.

The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident gave way to an undemocratic amount of power to President Lyndon B Johnson which used, as then revealed by the leaking of the Pentagon Papers a historical account of Vietnam war involvement that shed light to multiple lies), the false events to further his personal agenda. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed in August 7, 1964 claiming that the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take “all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression”, upon the said events of unprovoked firing by North Vietnamese torpedoes on American boats cruising the gulf some days before, gave Johnson an exploitative amount of power. (Ellsberg,2001) Johnson hesitated to commit more troops at the beginning of his term, knowing that the US public would not support an unprovoked military attack by the US, and to succeed during his campaign of 1964 he falsely pledged not to send “American boys” to Vietnam. The events show how the president jumped at an opportunity to carry out his political agenda, as he did not want to be the “first president to lose the war” and used the undetailed events as an excuse to rally an excessive amount of troops fighting in the inhumane conditions of guerilla warfare, which peaked to more than 500,000 in 1968. (Fincher,1980)

The efforts to keep American exceptionalism alive, lack of humility to admit the war was doomed from the beginning, and the avoidance of scarring the image of U.S identity as righteous was also prominent during Richard Nixon’s administration, who took office with the promise of bringing peace with honor. (Schultz, 2013) In 1970, a bloodthirsty and secret operation, disregarding human life entirely, was conducted by Henry Kissinger, the National Security Advisor at the time, bombing Cambodia in an attempt to destroy North Vietnamese supply through the Ho Chi Minh Trail to South Vietnam, ordering “everything that can fly to go in there and crack the hell out of them. There is no limitation on mileage and there is no limitation on budget”. The operation, which was undisclosed to American public, caused between 50,000 and 150,000 casualties as estimated by leading Cambodian Genocide scholar, Ben Kiernan. (Morris, 2015)

 The disregard for human life did not stop at the bombings. On May 4, 1970, unarmed students at Kent State University were shot by 28 National Guard soldiers, leaving four deceased and nine wounded. Upon the realization of the events in the neutral state Cambodia, students organized a demonstration to exercise their democratic right to protest the American involvement in the war, which ultimately lead to death, echoing behaviors of oppressive regimes that shoot down dissenters. (Bills, 1988) Paradoxically, riots against a war depicted to spread liberty, resulted in contrasting behavior towards its own citizens. 

 The lack of transparency caused a credibility gap, a soft way of describing the downright lies and deceits the government employed during the war. The term was coined by a NY Herald Tribune journalist in 1965 posing doubts that Lyndon Johnson was telling the truth about the Vietnam War, referring to the gap between what politicians and the government say and what happens in reality. Johnson and Nixon’s administration painted a more optimistic picture of what was happening in Vietnam, versus what was really happening, speaking confident words about the war as did Rostow, National Security Advisor, saying he “saw the light at the end of the tunnel”. (Stevenson, 2017) In reality, the situation was nowhere near optimistic, and the harsh realities of Vietnam and undemocratic practices were exposed by events such as the Tet Offensive in 68, The Pentagon Papers in 1971, and the reveal of Nixon’s “secret bombings” in Cambodia. These revelations hurt the government’s credibility and exposed how it undermined democracy at home in its spread of democracy merely to further a hidden agenda.

IV. Conclusion 

The United States exceptionalist narrative prides itself on the country not only acting as an example to the rest of the world, a blueprint for societies, but also acting as a world policeman, in protecting the world as an indispensable nation: a vessel of democracy and human rights. The narrative is often used to mask strategic intervention, but the nation abandons this narrative when it humanitarian catastrophes. Humanitarian intervention, often seen as an act of “pure good and morality” with the concrete political benefits as secondary, undertaken by an entity to alleviate extensive human suffering within the borders of a sovereign state is rare in U.S history when it finds little to no strategic value in the intervention. The lack of action paramountly speaks to the lack of veracity of the narrative on preserving moral high ground. Samantha Power, US ambassador to the U.N from 2013 to 2017, much in accordance with the hypocritical U.S narrative, expressed the moral responsibility to protect, “When innocent life is being taken on such a scale and the United States has the power to stop the killing at reasonable risk, it has a duty to act” she claims. (Lynch, 2013) Historical “failures” of human intervention, where American lives were lost, such as Somalia, along with lack of strategic value or a hidden political agenda deterred American intervention when it was a necessity to preserve human rights and democracy. During Bill Clinton’s administration, the complete lack of intervention in the Rwandan genocide, a place where the U.S found no strategic incentive, leaving up to 1 million deceased, the lack of involvement in Haiti, where he did not supply aid even though he claimed he would because of a mob that posed a threat, and the hesitation to intervene in Bosnia until later in the issue brings the realities of U.S intention to the surface- it will only call upon the narrative for democracy when it finds a self-serving interest, rather than to promote democracy for moral and ideological reasons. The hypocrisy is further strengthened with deceptive statements that put forth an effort to cultivate and nurture the perceived image of good-will, exceptionalism, and morality to the rest of the world. (O’Brien, 2019) Clinton’s apology towards the lack of intervention Rwanda holds this phenomenon true, claiming that he did not “fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which [Rwandans] were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror.”, although there is proof he knew from FOIA documents and CIA daily briefings that the nation knew the widespread terror and genocide occurring but decided to overlook it since involvement in the genocide didn't pertain self-serving interests. (Burkhalter, 1994)

American exceptionalism and the promotion of democratic values have served as the narrative the United States employs to preserve its status quo and pursue hegemony. The actions the nation carries out present a paradox- lack of involvement in undemocratic issues that lack strategic value while engaging in undemocratic practices to push forth agendas hidden behind justifications of democracy, both at home and abroad. During the Cold War, the overthrowal of democratically elected governments in Guatemala and Iran to backing terrorizing regimes, claiming to avoid the spread of communism despite concrete evidence that pointed to such affiliations, illustrate how the U.S acted on behalf of preserving economic interests and undermined democracy abroad. In the forenamed mission to spread democracy and contain communism, The United States operated a number of undemocratic practices within its borders, violating civil liberties by installing unwarranted and intrusive investigative entities such as the House of Un-American Activities Committee and Truman’s Loyalty order, as well as years of deceiving and disregarding the American population in the Vietnam War to further leader’s personal and hidden agendas. The United States uses American exceptionalism, the words of Woodrow Wilson and democracy to provide a moral high-ground and justification to facilitate self-interested behavior while subverting the core ideology of what it promotes.

Works Cited

Anderson, Gordon Louis. Philosophy of the United States: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Paragon House, 2004.

Bauer, Patricia. “New Look.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 11 July 2019, www.britannica.com/topic/New-Look-United-States-history.

Bills, Scott L. Kent State / May 4: Echoes through a Decade. The Kent State University Press, 1988.

Burkhalter, Holly J. “The Question of Genocide: The Clinton Administration and Rwanda.” Vol. 11, no. 4, 1994, pp. 44–54. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40209383. Accessed 6 Dec. 2019.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Cold War.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 30 Aug. 2019, www.britannica.com/event/Cold-War.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “House Un-American Activities Committee.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 31 Oct. 2019, www.britannica.com/topic/House-Un-American-Activities-Committee.

Ellsberg, Daniel. “Lying About Vietnam.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 29 June 2001, www.nytimes.com/2001/06/29/opinion/lying-about-vietnam.html.

Fincher, Ernest Barksdale. “The Vietnam War.” The Vietnam War, Watts, 1980.

Forsythe, David P. “Democracy, War, and Covert Action.” Vol. 29, no. 4, 1992, pp. 385–395. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/425540. Accessed 6 Dec. 2019.

Gasiorowski, Mark J. “The 1953 Coup D'etat in Iran.” Vol. 19, no. 3, 1987, pp. 261–286. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/163655. Accessed 6 Dec. 2019.

González, Juan. Harvest of Empire: a History of Latinos in America. Penguin Books, 2011.

Kennedy, John F. “Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States : from George Washington 1789 to George Bush 1989.” Avalon Project - Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, 1961, avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kennedy.asp.

Lynch, Colum. “Samantha Power's Problem from Hell.” Foreign Policy, 23 Sept. 2013, foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/23/samantha-powers-problem-from-hell/.

Morris, Brett S., et al. “Nixon and the Cambodian Genocide.” Jacobin, 2015, www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/khmer-rouge-cambodian-genocide-united-states/.

Nitze, Paul. “National Security Council Paper 68 (NSC-68).” Atomic Heritage Foundation, 1950, www.atomicheritage.org/key-documents/national-security-council-paper-68-nsc-68.

Pauline, Clara. “‘A City Upon a Hill’: American Exceptionalism from Puritanism to Postmodernism.” Medium, Medium, 21 Mar. 2015, medium.com/@ClaraPauline/a-city-upon-a-hill-american-exceptionalism-from-puritanism-to-postmodernism-99241b114f9a.

Pete. “The HUAC Hearings: An Attack on Free Thought in America.” Radical Tea Towel, 20 Oct. 2018, radicalteatowel.co.uk/blog/the-huac-hearings-an-attack-on-free-thought-in-america/.

Richardson, Seth W., and Harry S. Truman. “The Federal Employee Loyalty Program.” Vol. 51, no. 5, 1951, pp. 546–563., doi:10.2307/1119242. Accessed 6 Dec. 2019.

Rodgers, Daniel T. As a City on a Hill the Story of America`s Most Famous Lay Sermon. Princeton University Press, 2018.

Ryan, David, and Liam O'Brien. “Democracy Promotion and US Foreign Policy - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.” Oxford Research Encyclopedias, 17 July 2019, oxfordre.com/politics/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-361#acrefore-9780190228637-e-361-div2-11.

Schultz, Colin. “Nixon Prolonged Vietnam War for Political Gain-And Johnson Knew About It, Newly Unclassified Tapes Suggest.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 18 Mar. 2013, www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/.

Stevenson, Jonathan. “The Cold Warrior Who Never Apologized.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/vietnam-walt-rostow.html.

Streeter, Stephen M. “Interpreting the 1954 U.S. Intervention in Guatemala: Realist, Revisionist, and Postrevisionist Perspectives.” Vol. 34, no. 1, 2000, pp. 61–74. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/3054375. Accessed 6 Dec. 2019.

Theoharis, Athan. “The Truman Presidency: Trial and Error.” Vol. 55, no. 1, 1971, pp. 49–58. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4634671. Accessed 6 Dec. 2019.

United States, Congress, Churchill, Winston S. “The Sinews of Peace.” The Sinews of Peace, RosettaBooks, 1946.

Walt, Stephen M. “The Myth of American Exceptionalism.” Foreign Policy, 11 Oct. 2011, foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/the-myth-of-american-exceptionalism/.

Wilson, Woodrow. “Making the World ‘Safe for Democracy’: Woodrow Wilson Asks for War.” HISTORY MATTERS - The U.S. Survey Course on the Web, 2 Apr. 1917, historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4943/.