Answer:
Each added his own take on foreign policy, but there is one common thread - the U.S. can intervene in other nations’ affairs because the western hemisphere is our “sphere of influence” and American democracy and capitalism are superior to other systems. They presented it differently and had different criteria, but can be summed up in one word: intervention.
Roosevelt stated that it was the United States’ duty to bring stability and prosperity to the Caribbean and Latin America so that foreign nations would not spread their influence to “our” part of the world. He cloaked his interventionism as humanitarian, using his “big stick” to steal Panama from the Colombians and dominate the Dominicans economy.
Taft wanted to use “dollars instead of bullets” and supported assuming other countries’ debts, so they would be tied economically to the U.S. and not Europe. He was less aggressive, but used Marines to secure American interests in Nicaragua.
Although Wilson tried to reverse course from his aggressive predecessors and wanted “Moral Diplomacy,” not economic or military dominance to be his foreign policy, he was also a crusader for spreading democracy. When Latin American nations became less stable and threatened American interests, he intervened. This happened in Haiti, Cuba, and Mexico.
These frequent interventions set up a hostile relationship between the U.S. and the region; the U.S. supported Banana Republics throughout the 20th century, calling it “containment” during the Cold War. American foreign policy is not solely to blame, but much of the animosity toward the US (see Venezuela) and instability stems from over a century of American hegemony in the region
