Substituting dollars for bullets.” How does President Taft’s dollar diplomacy phrase compare to President Roosevelt’s “big stick” diplomacy? (1 point) Responses Substituting dollars for bullets represented using military funds to build and expand U.S. economic interests in Latin America, whereas “big stick” diplomacy used military funds and resources. Substituting dollars for bullets represented using military funds to build and expand U.S. economic interests in Latin America, whereas “big stick” diplomacy used military funds and resources. Substituting dollars represented spending minimal money and resources to end conflict peacefully, whereas “big stick” diplomacy relied on military resources to end conflict. Substituting dollars represented spending minimal money and resources to end conflict peacefully, whereas “big stick” diplomacy relied on military resources to end conflict. Substituting dollars represented spending more money on military intervention to build on “big stick” diplomacy policies. Substituting dollars represented spending more money on military intervention to build on “big stick” diplomacy policies. Substituting dollars represented utilizing economic policy in exchange for the use of military threat, whereas “big stick” diplomacy relies on the threat of military force.

Question

Answer 1

In summary, President Taft's dollar diplomacy focused on using economic policy and funding to further U.S. interests, while President Roosevelt's "big stick" diplomacy relied more on the threat and potential use of military force to achieve foreign policy goals.