William Appleman Williams (1921–1990)

If you want history from an anti-individualist slant this is the book for you. While criticizing Locke and Smith for their "laissez-faire" outlook he praises the limits they place on the economy. He is basically a mercantilist at heart and this comes through most clearly when he praises Keynes and the "Progressive Movement" for their adherence to the mercantilist tradition.(p446) He concludes his history (ending as the sixties began) with praise for the "socialist reassertion of the . . . show more ancient ideal of a Christian Commonwealth (as) a viable utopia".(p487) With that and a dollop of praise for Eugene V. Debs he, mercifully, closes the book on his progressive take on American history. show less

For Williams, Wilson's diplomacy is not merely symptomatic of a larger de-professionalization of diplomacy within a European context. Williams presents Wilson's diplomacy in the Great War in the context of his response to revolutions in Mexico, China, and Russia. Williams focuses on the continuity of Liberal economic thought which Wilson brought with him into the 20th century. Williams argues that in entering WWI, as well as seeking control over the course of revolutions in Asia and Latin show more America, Wilson sought to steer a course between revolution and reaction. The tragedy of Wilsonianism is, therefore, at the heart of the larger tragedy of American diplomacy, or the inability to accept the fact that other nations, pursuing their own revolutions, don't willingly assent to American tutelage. By accepting ideology as a continuous component of foreign policy formulation, as opposed to limiting it to the 20th century, Williams offers satisfying analysis. show less

Williams argues that 20th century US foreign relations are essentially economically motivated. His overall point is not difficult to accept, but he oversells it. His analysis of the Spanish-American War is strong, but his specifics get weaker as he goes. By the time he gets to the Cold War, he has practically no support at all. He sees the Open Door Notes as the essential statement of US policy, but ignores nationalism, democratic ideology, and US exceptionalism. This book is a classic of US show more foreign policy, but it is limited in its analysis by its particular ideology. show less

nice collection of primary source material