Question

1. what do you think he means by “intervention?” how might the u.s. intervene when “wrongdoing” occurs in other countries?

“the diplomacy of the present administration*… has been characterized as substituting dollars for bullets.”
-from president william h. taft’s fourth annual message to congress, 1912
*administration - taft’s presidency

1. what does taft mean by “substituting dollars for bullets?”
2. how is this different from roosevelt’s “big stick policy?”
3. which policy do you think is more effective and why?

Explanation:

1. Intervention can mean political, economic or military involvement. The U.S. might intervene through economic aid, sanctions, or sending peace - keeping forces.
2. Taft means using economic means (dollars) like loans, investments for influence instead of military force (bullets).
3. Roosevelt's "Big Stick Policy" emphasized the threat of military force along with diplomacy, while Taft's approach was more economic - focused.
4. Effectiveness depends on context. Taft's economic approach can build long - term relationships but may not address immediate threats. Roosevelt's "Big Stick" can be effective for quick resolutions but may lead to hostility.

Answer:

1. Intervention can be various forms of involvement. U.S. may use economic or military means.
2. Using economic influence over military force.
3. Roosevelt emphasized military threat, Taft was economic - focused.
4. Context - dependent. Taft for long - term, Roosevelt for quick action.