"Which factor, self-interest or idealism, was more important in driving American foreign policy in the years 1895-1920?"

and i found this great article online and it says something like

"Even by the time of the election of 1900, both parties were renouncing any desire to extend America’s domain."

is that true? if so, how can i back it up?

i mean, also, can someone explain (using small words) what idealism means?

which do you think it is - idealism or self-interest, and why?

Idealism is about trying to hold to an ideal---attempting to achieve positive goals, regardless of opposition--and sometimes regardless of reality. For example, promising to bring home the troops from Iraq in 6 months (or even 16) is idealistic. Not impossible, but not necessarily realistic or even wise.

If both parties were denouncing any more expansionism by 1900, it was in response to a war-weary electorate.Election years bring all kinds of idealistic proclamations. Besides, we already had all the territory we wanted; in the Sp-Am War we got the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and the Phillipines (didn't work out so hot, hence the war-weariness), and we also had aquired Hawaii.

The fact that shortly after 1900 and McKinley's assassination, the extremely popular TR added his famous Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, and "strategized" us into building and controlling the Panama Canal, may be a useful argument that while we WANTED to stick to ideals, and in the case of Wilson stuck it out as long as possible, self-interest ruled the day, as it always has. In TR's case, his ideals were often based on our self-interest.
Think of it in these terms: Wilson was re-elected in 1916 on the basis of "he kept us out of war." About 30 seconds after being innaugurated in 1917, he put us right in it.
Hope this helps.