Since Woodrow Wilson's time, American leaders have dreamed of making democracy spread across the world. Ever heard of Vietnam? Or the war in Iraq? In both cases, the United States intervened to try to make countries free from regimes America didn't like.
When Wilson lobbied Congress to approve entering World War I, he had a simple message: "the world must be made safe for democracy" (source). In that speech, he went on to call the United States "champions of the rights of mankind."
In Wilson's mind, this war was about making the world a freer place. Was he right? Yes and no. The United States saw itself as the world's guidance counselor. But the European powers saw themselves more as associate principals—it was sort of like the good cop, bad cop routine, only without the cops working together.
Questions About Freedom and Tyranny
- Should countries fight wars in order to spread democracy across the world?
- What makes a country "free?" Is it only about the system of government, or do other factors also play a part?
- Do you think democracy works best in every part of the world? What are some of its limitations, advantages, and disadvantages?
- If you were Woodrow Wilson in 1918, how would you have tried to convince European powers to give up their colonies and subjects?
Chew on This
Woodrow Wilson portrayed America's involvement in WWI as a crusade for freedom, but only after America had been directly threatened.
Wilson's justification for going to war—to make the world free and safe—became the standard for future American wars.