Examining the United States federal government through the lens of POSIWID—the principle that the purpose of a system is what it does—offers a candid view of its underlying motivations and priorities at various turning points in history. This approach requires looking beyond stated intentions and rhetoric to understand the actual functions and impacts of governmental actions.
Here’s an analysis of the U.S. federal government at several critical junctures, reflecting its true purpose through its deeds:
1. The Early Republic: Expansion and Asserting Dominance
At the nation’s outset, the federal government’s actions swiftly revealed a purpose of territorial expansion and the assertion of regional dominance, despite rhetoric often focused on republican ideals and avoiding European entanglements.
- Louisiana Purchase (1803): Thomas Jefferson, an architect of American statecraft, interpreted the Constitution “flexibly to complete the Louisiana Purchase when timely”. While the stated purpose might have been to secure New Orleans for trade, the action itself fundamentally doubled the territory of the United States. This demonstrated a pragmatic purpose of continental expansion, even if it meant adapting constitutional interpretation to achieve geopolitical aims.
- Monroe Doctrine (1823): Initially a “diplomatic declaration of independence” meant to warn European powers against meddling in the Western Hemisphere, its actual application evolved into a justification for U.S. intervention. The Roosevelt Corollary in 1904, for example, explicitly provided a rationale for American intervention in Latin America, transforming the doctrine’s meaning from preventing European interference to asserting U.S. “influence and power” in the region, often on grounds of “inefficient” revolutions threatening American interests. What it did was establish a U.S. sphere of influence, despite earlier anti-colonial principles.
- Early Central Banking: The establishment of the First and Second Banks of the United States, which historians sometimes blame on a lack of central banks, were in practice designed to “create money for the federal government” and encourage credit expansion by state banks. This led to America’s “first widespread economic and financial depression” through “boom-bust” cycles. The actual purpose served was to finance government operations and expand the money supply, illustrating a willingness to risk economic volatility for fiscal and expansionary goals.
2. The Late 19th and Early 20th Century: Economic Imperialism and Centralization
As the U.S. industrialized and its power grew, the federal government’s actions demonstrated a clear purpose of facilitating economic expansion and centralizing financial control, sometimes under the guise of broader ideals or reform.
- National Banking System (1863-1865): While enacted under “war necessity,” this system was “designed to alter the banking system permanently,” linking banks to the federal government and its debt. A profound political goal was to “eradicate the embarrassing doctrine of states rights and to nationalize American politics”. The system’s purpose, therefore, was not merely wartime finance but the permanent centralization of banking power and the nationalization of American political and economic life.
- “Open Door” Policy (1899-1900): Secretary of State John Hay’s “Open Door” policy was presented as assuring “equality of access for goods and capital” in China and resisting the world’s division. However, critics like William Appleman Williams argued it constituted “non-colonial imperial expansion” designed to “extend the American system throughout the world without the embarrassment and inefficiency of traditional colonialism”. The government’s actions, including military interventions in various Latin American countries and efforts to secure markets for U.S. exports, revealed a purpose of expanding American economic power and influence globally, even if formal annexation was eschewed.
- Federal Reserve System (1913): Despite assurances of decentralizing banking power away from Wall Street, within a few years, the System was “controlled by the New York Reserve Bank” under Benjamin Strong, “synonymous with the Wall Street money trust”. World War I further solidified this, as the Fed became the sole fiscal agent of the Treasury and amassed the nation’s gold reserves. The system did centralize control and amplify the influence of private bankers in partnership with the government, contrary to its decentralized promises.
3. The Great Depression and New Deal: Executive Power in Crisis
The severe economic crisis of the 1930s prompted an unprecedented expansion of federal executive power, demonstrating a purpose to intervene extensively in the economy and social life, even if it challenged traditional constitutional interpretations.
- FDR’s “Broad Executive Power”: Upon entering office, Franklin D. Roosevelt sought “broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe”. His administration’s actions, such as establishing federal deposit insurance, consolidating financial controls, and pursuing legislative strategies that faced Supreme Court challenges, clearly showed a purpose of aggressive governmental intervention to restore economic stability and provide social safety nets. While Roosevelt’s “court packing” plan was ultimately rejected by Congress, the Court’s subsequent shift in interpretation demonstrated the effectiveness of political pressure on the judiciary. What it did was centralize decision-making and expand the administrative state significantly.
- Reciprocal Trade Agreements: Under Cordell Hull, the U.S. pursued reciprocal trade agreements. Hull’s vision was to “align” trade policy with foreign and economic objectives, promoting a “new system of international relationships in trade”. This policy, initially aimed at economic recovery, in action served to “promote and encourage American exports” and position the U.S. for “leadership toward a new system of international relationships” driven by national self-interest. Its purpose was to extend American economic influence and shape global trade systems.
4. Post-World War II and the Cold War: Global Hegemony and Ideological Construction
The post-war era witnessed a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy, revealing a purpose of establishing and maintaining global leadership, often underpinned by a broad ideological framework.
- Shift to Alliances and Global Responsibility: Reversing 150 years of “neutrality,” the U.S. “devised an international economic and security system that has lasted through today”. This was not a pre-planned strategy but a “pragmatic, bold, and responsive to a Soviet threat”. Despite the Monroe Doctrine’s original intent to avoid European entanglements, the State Department paradoxically described the NATO treaty as “the most important step in American foreign policy since the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine”. What it did was commit the U.S. to a network of alliances and global military presence, framing its purpose as defending “the free world” and containing communism, even if it involved sacrificing traditional doctrines like neutrality.
- Vietnam War and “Credibility”: The U.S. intervention in Vietnam, especially under Lyndon Johnson, was driven by a preoccupation with domestic politics and a desire “not to be a Paper Tiger” to maintain “credibility” in its alliances. Despite the immense human cost, the government’s purpose was to demonstrate its willingness to “carry out promises and threats” and reinforce its “prestige” as a global power. The stated aims were often tied to supporting self-determination, but the actions revealed a deeper commitment to proving its reliability as an ally, regardless of the local realities.
- Nixon-Kissinger Realpolitik: Nixon and Kissinger’s foreign policy aimed to reorder the international system, often through “triangular diplomacy” with China and the Soviet Union. Kissinger argued this was to manage a shift to multipolarity and rely on “maneuver, originality, and imagination”. However, their actions ultimately served to “reassert[ ] US power in the framework of bipolarity” and educate Americans that foreign policy should be “geared to an analysis of the national interest” over “legal principles”. The purpose was not just a global balance but to “accumulate nuances in pursuit of long-range goals” that enhanced U.S. power.
- The Dollar’s Enduring Role: Even after abandoning the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates in 1971, the U.S. dollar continued to reign supreme as the principal reserve currency, allowing the U.S. to finance deficits “with considerable ease and at low interest rates”. This allowed Washington to “force big changes in the international arena while preserving the underlying political framework”. The purpose revealed was to leverage its economic strength, specifically the dollar’s global status, as a continuous instrument of “American power and influence”.
- Cold War Ideology: The “Cold War” itself was, to a significant extent, a “US ideological project” that framed the conflict in stark terms of “freedom achieved” versus totalitarianism. This ideological construct enabled the government to “render virtually impossible any opposition to Washington’s license to act everywhere”. The linking of domestic issues like civil rights to Cold War global politics also served to present a “story of progress, a story of the triumph of good over evil, a story of US moral superiority”. The government’s purpose was to mobilize public opinion and justify extensive domestic and foreign policy actions by defining a “global purpose of putting the United States into the world once and for all”.
5. Post-Cold War and 21st Century: Adapting Global Power
The period after the Cold War, particularly post-9/11, shows the government adapting its global power projection while grappling with internal and external challenges.
- “Global War on Terror” (Post-9/11): President George W. Bush declared a “Global War on Terror” after September 11, 2001, complemented by a “Freedom Agenda”. The subsequent military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq revealed a purpose to “transform” the Middle East into the “modern world”. Despite the rhetoric of spreading democracy, the actions reflected a continuation of leveraging crises to justify broad military engagements and reshape regions perceived as threats, even if this approach was seen by some as breeding resentment.
- Executive Power in Crisis: Across various administrations, “security crises have permitted executive power grabs”. The Supreme Court has upheld broad presidential power to remove executive branch officials, while maintaining limits for independent, multi-member bodies performing quasi-legislative/judicial functions. However, challenges to the idea that a president can do “literally anything he likes if he claims to be doing it based on national security” show a tension. The government does expand executive authority during emergencies, consistently demonstrating a purpose to centralize control in the face of perceived threats, even as debates about the constitutional limits persist.
- “America First” (Trump Administration): President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy explicitly stressed “sharp breaks with the past” regarding alliances and trade, favoring “transactional dealmaking over the diplomacy of ongoing partnerships”. This approach, while proclaimed as prioritizing national interests, manifested as unilateral actions and a willingness to disengage from established global frameworks. The purpose was to redefine U.S. global engagement based on a narrow interpretation of national self-interest, often disregarding multilateral cooperation.
In sum, the application of POSIWID reveals that while the U.S. federal government’s stated goals have often invoked ideals of liberty, democracy, and self-determination, its consistent actions across centuries have frequently centered on the expansion and consolidation of national power, economic dominance, and global influence. This has involved pragmatic flexibility in constitutional interpretation, strategic use of economic and military tools, and the construction of broad ideological frameworks to justify its interventions and leadership on the world stage. Understanding what the government did offers crucial insights into its enduring historical purposes.