The Future of the Monroe Doctrine

Login or Register to leave a comment.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.

THE hundredth anniversary of the Monroe Doctrine has now been duly celebrated. In the literature elicited by this occasion the dominant note has been one of satisfaction and of praise. Plainly the American people with few exceptions are proud of the Monroe Doctrine. They look on it as a monument to the wisdom of the fathers. They believe that it has proved beneficial, not only to themselves, but to the whole Western Hemisphere, without giving cause of legitimate umbrage to the rest of the world for it is a doctrine of defense, not aggression. It has been and still is the shield of many a weak state. So far from being "an obsolete shibboleth,"^[i] it is as living today as when it was first enunciated and is admitted to be the fundamental principle of our foreign policy from which no statesman at Washington may swerve even by a hair's breadth.

To be sure, these views come a little more glibly from the Republicans than from the Democrats. The Monroe Doctrine did get into the Peace of Versailles, but it was rather as an after-thought with the not very inspiring appellation of a "regional understanding." It may not be incompatible with the League of Nations, but the relations between the two require a certain amount of explanation. This explanation the Democrats have offered, indeed they have had to keep on offering it, yet at the best theirs is only a defensive attitude, however vigorous, while the Republicans can expatiate on the triumphant continuity of the truly American policy from the days of Monroe and John Quincy Adams to those of Harding and Hughes. Certainly its success has been remarkable and great is its present renown...