Manufactured Consent: The Rationales Behind American Foreign Conquests

Title: Manufactured Consent: The Rationales Behind American Foreign Conquests

Introduction: In Daniel Immerwahr’s book, “How to Hide an Empire,” Chapter 6 delves into the tactics employed by foreign policy elites in the United States to garner public support for costly foreign military conquests. This essay aims to explore the justifications and rationales used by these elites to manufacture consent among their fellow Americans, as well as the discrepancy between what most Americans believed and what was being discussed behind closed doors.

Body:

The Justifications and Rationales:

Expansion of American influence: Foreign policy elites often framed military conquests as a means to expand American influence and secure global power. They argued that the United States had a responsibility to spread democracy and civilization to other nations, presenting intervention as a moral duty.
Economic interests: By linking foreign conquests to economic benefits, elites sought to gain public support. They emphasized the potential for trade opportunities, access to resources, and new markets. These economic justifications were particularly significant in the cases of Hawaii and the Philippines.
National security: Citing threats to national security, elites portrayed intervention as a defensive measure. They argued that acquiring strategic locations would protect American interests and prevent rival nations from gaining control over vital regions.
Public Perception vs. Private Discussions:

The American public’s perception: Most Americans believed that the U.S. intervened in Hawaii and went to war with Spain due to noble reasons such as protecting democracy and liberating oppressed peoples. They were led to believe that these actions were driven by the ideals of freedom and self-determination.
Behind closed doors: In private discussions, foreign policy elites revealed their true motivations. They acknowledged the economic benefits and strategic advantages of conquests, often discussing imperial ambitions and territorial expansion. These discussions were far removed from the altruistic rhetoric presented to the public.
According to Immerwahr (p. 204), “The Philippine adventure was a land grab, pure and simple. The country itself was a prize, but so too were its people; their labor would be put to use in plantations and mines.” This quote highlights the real motivations behind the U.S. intervention in the Philippines, which were centered on economic gain and territorial acquisition.

Conclusion:

Foreign policy elites in the United States employed various justifications and rationales to manufacture consent for costly foreign military conquests. By emphasizing notions of expanding American influence, economic benefits, and national security, they sought to garner public support. However, behind closed doors, these elites discussed their true motivations, which revolved around economic gain and territorial acquisition. Understanding this discrepancy between public perception and private discussions allows us to critically analyze historical events and question the narratives presented by those in power.