Final Answer:
Senator Albert Beveridge's main idea is that, despite the rhetoric of self-governance and enlightenment, there is a duty owed to the world. He questions whether turning people back to their original circumstances, amidst nations like Germany, England, and Japan, is ethical. The senator raises concerns about saving nations from others only to subject them to a tragic self-rule.
Step-by-step explanation:
Senator Albert Beveridge contends that the United States has a moral obligation to the world, challenging the notion of a self-governing elite detached from global responsibilities. The evidence lies in his questioning of whether the U.S. should abandon nations it has liberated, leaving them vulnerable to powerful nations like Germany and England. This implies a call for intervention rather than non-intervention.
Beveridge's interventionist stance is evident as he questions the wisdom of turning nations back to potential oppressors. His inquiry about saving nations from others suggests a willingness to intervene in global affairs, contradicting the non-interventionist perspective. The duty owed to the world, as per Beveridge, involves actively engaging with international issues rather than adopting an isolationist stance.
In conclusion, Senator Albert Beveridge advocates for interventionism, emphasizing a global duty for the United States beyond mere self-governance. The evidence and the context of his words reveal a stance that aligns with interventionist principles, urging a more active role in shaping the fate of nations for a just and equitable world.