Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson differed sharply on foreign policy. TR was a realist who was capable of shrewd diplomacy and peacemaking and viewed America as emerging world power whose values and ideals would have an ennobling effect on the world. He favored imperialism and increasing American influence and prestige, willing to use force when necessary while practicing the art of persuasion. This was evident when he used heavy-handed tactics in securing rights to construct a canal in Panama. He sought to assemble a powerful and reliable defense for the US to avoid conflicts with enemies who might prey on any weakness. Although he was recognized for aggressive foreign policies, he was a peacemaker. During the Russo-Japanese War, he …show more content…
He was eager to promote democracy and world peace and unwilling to use force. He, as much as possible, maintained strong belief in neutrality. But many of his attempts to encourage democracy and peace, especially in European and Latin American affairs, which backfired. He preferred to abandon the idea of an imperialist policy and although he believed the U.S. was politically enlightened nation under God, he felt all the world had right to self-determination. But his idealism led to his somewhat failed Fourteen-Point Plan in Europe, which he refused to consider compromises, and his direct interference and failure in the revolutions of Latin America, causing him to occupy several countries by force to prevent tyranny. His foreign policy was characterized by a steadfast belief in neutrality and governing based on morals. This was especially clear during World War I, with the German submarines warfare. Wilson at first only ceased diplomatic relations with Germany. This strategy truly epitomized his reluctance to go to war. He believed that the goal of the war was to end militarism and fight for democracy, self-government and peace. Even though he was eventually forced to declare war on Germany, he insisted that U.S. was fighting war for moral