History 291                                                                                                                            Richard H. Immerman
Superpower America                                                                                                          Fall 2004

                                                                 Final Examination Study Guide

Your final opportunity to dazzle me with your expertise, perspicacity, and erudition is rapidly approaching.
You must be growing anxious. You must be asking yourself, "What will Immerman ask? Why did he wait so long to post the questions? What do I still need to read? What do I need to review? Where can I get some Cliff notes? Are there Cliff notes for history? Who the hell is Cliff anyway?"

I hear you. Here the questions are.  Smile and breathe a sigh of relief.

A reminder: your essays must focus on the fundamental historical issues that inhere in the question(s). To 
the greatest extent possible assiduously provide support for  your conclusions (i.e., arguments). Exploit the robust evidence you can glean from  the  readings, lectures, and materials on line (e.g., documents). Think about what response is necessary as well as  sufficient for each question (what precisely am I asking  you to think about and do), and organize your presentations and illustrations accordingly.  Strive for logic, consistency, and succinctness (avoid tangents); anticipate counterarguments and preempt/coopt them. Keep in mind that this time around you will be required to write two essays.  For this reason I have decided not to include on the final exam those dreaded identification questions (which caused some of you no end of grief on the midterm). Hence you should have ample time to produce thorough essays.

I have confidence in all of you; I hope you share my outlook. Don't worry; be happy.

1.     An authority on U.S. history has written, "Henry Kissinger believed that, in creating a design for a world order, realism was more compassionate than romanticism. The great moralists, in his judgment, had been failures. Woodrow Wilson had proved ineffectual, and John Foster Dulles had turned foreign policy into a crusade that led straight into the Indochina quagmire. Kissinger did not make peace or justice the objective of his policy, nor was he particularly interested in 'making the world safe for democracy.' He merely wished to make the world safer and more stable." For this insightful understanding of history and astute recognition of what constitutes the national interest, this authority concluded, Kissinger deserves the congratulations and gratitude of all Americans.
        What advice would this authority have provided President George Dubya Bush on September 12, 2001? Do you agree with this advice? Base your reasoning on your evaluation, as an authority, of Kissinger's diagnoses and prescriptions--as well as your assessment of the conduct of foreign policy--and the outcomes of this policy--by those in Washington whose diagnoses and prescriptions have differed from Kissinger's.

2.   The history of U.S. foreign policy during the Reagan administration remains to be written. To some, he was a skilled statesman with exceptional foresight who achieved his most important aims: He prevented communist expansion, he brought the Soviet Union to its knees, and he restored America's strength, confidence, and spirit. To others, he was an uninformed, detached ideologue, incapable of understanding global complexity. His rigidity, myopia, and ignorance unnecessarily increased international tension even as it undermined America's economic vitality.
       Choose your side. How would you evaluate Reagan and his foreign policy? What do you consider his legacy? Comparing Reagan’s successes to Carter’s distresses, address this fundamental historical question:  Would you attribute the results and consequences of their respective foreign policies primarily to the premises and initiatives of the two presidents and each’s advisors or to the historical circumstance in which each president found himself?
       Provide appropriate evidence (e.g., examples) to support your arguments.

3.   Subsequent to the events of 9/11, many commentators have addressed the question of how non-Americans perceive the United States around the globe, especially in less developed regions and by peoples with religions and cultures very different than America’s.
      This course by design has concentrated on those officials in Washington—whether elected or appointed—who formulated and implemented the policies and programs associated with America’s “global reach.” Thus this course has at least implied that officials in Washington—the U.S. government—are largely responsible for America’s international behavior and thus foreign perceptions of the United States. Walter LaFeber, however, argues that especially but not exclusively since the acceleration of the process of globalization in the 1980s,  non-state actors such as Michael Jordan and Philip Knight have eclipsed the U.S. government as a force in expanding America’s international influence and power. LaFeber maintains that Michael Jordan illustrates a new form of American power, and only by examining it can we hope to understand the tragedy of 9/11.
     Carefully summarize and critically analyze LaFeber’s argument. Be sure to discuss what evidence LaFeber provides and the reasons why you find this argument persuasive—or not.

4.  "Whatever else might be said about the Cold War, the one thing it cannot be accused of is of having failed to engage the interest and attention of the western intellectual community," writes one scholar. He then asks, "If the Cold War was analyzed in such detail, why were we unable to anticipate its conclusion in the late eighties?" Good question, so why don't you answer it. Provide a narrative that traces the history of  the end of the cold war, and provide reasons that explain why scholars of the Cold War failed to predict this narrative.

Back to Course Home Page