Saturday, October 19, 2013
Why the shift?
Jimmy Carter grew up during WWII, and was directly influenced by Truman's containment policies. Also, many members of his cabinet had also previous Cold War administrations. Why did Carter engage in a shift in foreign policy towards human rights issues? How might previous events such as Vietnam or interventions in Latin America have affected this choice?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
so sure, Jimmy Carter and many people around his generation had lived through WWII and Truman's containment plan, but by the time Carter become president the younger folk were protesting Vietnam with images of My Lai and rioting in the streets for Civil rights. everything was publicized and most of the action was taking place on college campuses, as opposed to people among Carter's generation, making a bit more important to deal with things closer to home instead of focusing on the Soviet Union which would make it less likely for him to be reelected.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty i think that anyone who witness such horrific events and equally poignant political figures and decisions. It does not come as any surprise that such events and people influenced Carter's decision to focus on Human Rights. Plain and simple he had seen enough abuse and bastardization of human rights and basic dignity through all the war and violence he and his cabinet members grew up around. He drew his attention to south America because "The Carter initiative affect U.S. prestige newspaper coverage of the region most affect by the US policy change - latin america."
ReplyDeleteAs we have discussed the Vietnam war was such a horrible time where war was unbearable overseas and domestic issues were erupting at home as well. Possibly the Vietnam war was the breaking point. We have attempted to be a world police force in foreign policy and Carter probably figured it was time to just focus on domestic issues. The article talks about how Carter's focus o human rights is connected to the media coverage of Latin America. These two obviously go hand in hand because in Latin America human rights were obviously not rewarded. Therefore this increased coverage and exposure of lack of human rights in Latin America only increased the support for human rights policies in the US.
ReplyDeleteAs Sydney already mentioned and as the second reading says, The shift in Us policy due to Carter's concern about human rights brought him a lot of sympathy in the public and therefore lots of voters. America had been through some really terrible stuff and the public was not willing to stand by anymore, they had been protesting for a long time. After the many oppositions of human right activists it was time for politics to desist from supporting human rights violating countries. I think people were happy that there was somebody who wasn't only concerned about the USA's supremacy in the world.
ReplyDeleteI think that with the unbearableness of the Vietnam war and everything else that has happen in the past, it was definetly a change in motives for carter. For so long we have been trying to make our mark in the world and be this worldly super power and now after all that this generation has seen, something new had to be done. So I think that the change in human right was exactly what was needed?
ReplyDeleteI believe that carter switched to human rights because the american people had been exposed to the horrors of Vietnam including the my lai massacre. Carter had also witnessed the horrors of WWII and the holocaust, so that made a huge impact on him and building who he was in a moral standpoint.Carter was also getting pressured by the american people to change due to Vietnam and the unpopularity of the conflict.also being a part of the navy gave Carter the chance to witness the bloodshed and terrible acts of the military. I believe the big push came through the american people who were tired of fighting in Vietnam with no real reason and killing our young men and the civilians of Vietnam.
ReplyDeleteCarter switched to human rights because of human rights violations, specifically in Latin America. This was due to the amount of American media in other countries. I think media played a large role in this shift because of the horrific pictures shown of the Vietnam War and the exposure of the lives of many Latin Americans.
ReplyDeleteThis choice was affected by media pressure at the time. There were obviously a lot of people who had protested the war, and there was a lot of pressure on the Carter administration to maker a change. The public could see in real time the effects of the war on the Vietnamese, and so they had a greater influence on the government than ever before during a war.
ReplyDeleteI think Americans were beginning to feel abused or betrayed by their government. They had been lied too and dragged through war after war and it all seemed to be because of political reasons. The government (according to the american people) were trying to "help" people around the war and were ignoring the problems at home. Carter's shift of view helped to regain the trust of some American people.
ReplyDeleteCarter began to engage in human rights issues to make the people happy, whom were already concerned with human rights. All Carter did was make their wishes legitimate since he could create policy makers and implement change. Regarding how previous events affected this choice, it seems to me that the US just dealt with countries with fewer strategic implications of US interest. The article blatantly says, "The Carter administration's concern about rights violations in Latin America was not the result of a sudden or recent increase in atrocities in the region," so can it be argued this human rights movement would happen without tragedy?
ReplyDeleteCarter knew that Vietnam was completely opposed by the public, and the youth was the biggest opponent of the war. The people of America wanted to know that the government was doing something to actively change the pattern of gross mistreatment of people in distant countries that America should not have war with in the first place. Carter saw that a huge contributor to a President's approval rating had to do with the people's opinion on foreign affairs, and this was heightened by being in the wake of the longest and most opposed war in United States history.
ReplyDeleteSince Carter himself and his crew have witnessed what it was like at home during the cold war era and the domestically unpopular Vietnam, he knew it is time to move on. Carter definitely understand the public’s mentality when the government dragged the entire country into the longest war in us history solely for political cause regardless demotic opposition, this failure to consideration of respect of individual rights could have helped America to repair its reputation on the globe, comfort and docile demotic anger and serious concern of weather we are fighting for the genuine cause. Mylai massacre as a colossal scandal must gave the administration a heads up that if America is abusing the righteous cause and doing the opposite.
ReplyDelete