President Carter's Use Of Moral Leadership

596 Words2 Pages

Moral leader is often times viewed as an oxymoron contradicting the each other. Many believe that a moral leader is absolutely ill equipped to lead a nation of a great power and that morality is an unnecessary factor in such leadership. Commonly, a leader is defined as one who guides through efficiency and persuasion. One key component of persuasion is personal integrity. Without personal integrity, a person can’t easily radiant their leadership onto the crowd. Moral leadership is a very different kind of leadership similar to servant leadership in a way that the whole purpose is to serve for others than for themselves. The term good leadership coincides with moral leadership, as seen through the most common example Hitler. He was an effective leader at that time for the future of Germany, but as an absolute authority, was the most immoral leader in history leaving tragic remarks on humanity despite his known …show more content…

Although his impact as president is little known to the public and perhaps disproved from the public’s eye, Carter positively led changes in many aspects of American foreign policies. First of all, President Carter effectively led compromises in Israel-Egypt peace treaty, the Panama Canal treaties and heavily advocated for human rights. For the duration of his presidency, his support of human rights had been derided as major fault of his presidency, however, this support created many lasting long term impacts. First of all, he changes the military dictatorships in Latin American to democracies keeping with the theme of “spread of democracy” and stood against the movement of dictatorships in Argentina and Chile. Majorly, his support for the solitary movement in Poland was an essential element in deteriorating Communism in the years to come. Carter’s effectiveness in solving the America’s foreign policy points that morality isn’t an obstacle in phase

Open Document