Between the era of Mahan Beveridge, Schurz, and Bryan, there have been many outlooks and opinions about whether or not imperialism is good or bad; some similar, some different. One is the speech by Obama being similar to Bryan’s opinions in relations to them both believing that imperialism is pointless, and overall not a good decision since there can be other ways to solve the problems they may have for imperializing in the first place. They both saw the same effects that can come out of imperializing; the consequence being an unnecessary war that can be avoided in the first place. Webb’s is also similar to both Bryan and Obama’s opinion because he also believes that it is an unnecessary thing to do in order for us to get what we want. They …show more content…
Beveridge believe that we should just be able to do what other country can do, while Obama focuses on what would be best for the country; basically staying out of wars when they can be avoidable. Beveridge’s response to why we should imperialize other countries is not necessarily how it’s beneficial to our country, but more of its “fair” and we’d be more “equal” to other countries since their governing foreign countries as well. He believes that since we can do it, we should just expand our territory. He thinks that Americans should continue with the march toward commercial supremacy of the World, not even considering any of the outcomes. His strong nationalism is only focusing about the power America can get by doing what every other country may be doing, imperializing. Obama on the other hand, focuses on why it isn’t a good idea, and explains the effects it may have, and why overall it isn’t the best thing for our country. Imperializing can lead to unnecessary wars, which could have been avoided; something Beveridge didn’t even consider since he has different goals of what the outcomes of imperializing should be than the realistic results that could actually occur due to his strong