Dumbrell, John. The Carter Presidency A re-evaluation. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1995. John Dumbrell served as Professor of Government in the School of Government and International Affairs at Durham University, in the United Kingdom. Dumbrell specialized in U.S. government and politics. He is author of several books including another work focusing on Carter; American Foreign Policy: Carter to Clinton. Dumbrell argues that Carter was committed to human rights. He argues that this commitment was reflected in the President’s domestic and foreign policy initiatives. The author further suggests that perception of Carter’s lack of success is due more to the actions of his key policy advisors, Washington bureaucracy …show more content…
He states despite a clear agenda towards improving civil rights and economic equality, there was a perception that Carter cared more about human rights overseas than he did in America. Post liberalism fiscal conservatism and foreign criticism of American domestic civil liberties made Carter’s efforts harder (p.64). The media was responsible for furthering this image. Carter’s personal beliefs on abortion, and his allowing the abortion issue to be settled by congress and the courts, hurt his support from women’s groups. This sparked opposition from prominent feminist movements. Carter also failed to have the Equal Rights Amendment ratified, further diminishing his domestic human rights …show more content…
He was essentially unsuccessful in compelling these countries to make moves towards changing practices to end the human rights abuses Carter’s administration perceived. President Carter’s attempts to address human rights issues with the Soviets made nuclear arms talks more difficult, resulting in an agreement that was not accept by Congress. He also loses détente, and severely damages working relations with the Soviets. In Nicaragua and Iran Carter started with a human rights-based approach but resorted to siding with leaders who were actively conducting human rights violations. Carter supported these countries, disregarding their human rights abuses for the sake strategic national security reasons, similar to what previous administrations had done. Dumbrell concludes his arguments that Carter was committed to human rights policies but his administration was poorly organized and somewhat unsuccessful in promoting human rights. National security interests outweighed Carter’s good intentions resulting in America openly supporting several human rights violating countries. He states that ultimately government bureaucracy and personality splits between his key foreign policy advisors hampered efforts to achieve his
As we move into the reelection year, the authors accuse Nancy of ensuring that Reagan hasn’t campaigned for eight months, following a “Rose Garden strategy.” But Reagan has no credible opponent for the 1984 nomination, and Walter Mondale, who will be his Democratic opponent in the general election, has not yet been nominated. So there is no need for a strategy, Rose Garden or otherwise. Of course we get the full chapter and verse on Reagan’s poor performance in his first debate with Mondale; at least we also get the report on the second debate. From there the narrative jumps to the Iran-Contra affair. A few high points — like the Berlin Wall speech in 1987 — are indeed included, but without any perspective on Reagan’s strategy, perseverance with the Soviets on arms control, or success in revitalizing the U.S. economy. Nothing is said about Reagan’s four second-term summits with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Except for a few comments that Reagan deplored Communism, this is a policy-free book, and a book
This investigation addresses the following question: How important was Phyllis Schlafly’s role in the defeat of the U.S. Equal Rights Amendment? In order to evaluate her importance, this investigation will address several factors that contributed to the defeat of the ERA, such as the negative portrayal of women by the press, the decriminalization of abortion, the split between feminists who wanted the ERA to pass and those who believed that its passage would lead to the deterioration of women’s protective laws, and the role of the Phyllis Schlafly and her Stop ERA campaign. One source used in this investigation, “Stop ERA,” is evaluated for its insight into Phyllis Schlafly’s plan on how to campaign against the ERA, as she was the author of this document. The second source, an excerpt from the article “The Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights of Women,” will be analyzed for its professional, relatively unbiased opinions; this article was written for the Yale Law Journal in 1971, meaning that it consists of a concrete legal analysis of the amendment from the time period in which it was being ratified.
When Johnson took over the Presidency following the assassination of Kennedy, he was determined to push through the Great Society agenda. President Johnson used the recent death as a reason to quickly enact laws for social reform in memory of Kennedy. Despite Republican opposition, Johnson was able to get the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 passed through congress,
Between 1895 and 1920, the years in which William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson reigned in the presidents, the United States struggled for not only justice at home but abroad as well. During this period policies such as Roosevelt’s Big Stick diplomacy, William Taft’s Dollar diplomacy, and Woodrow Wilson’s Moral diplomacy were all used in foreign affairs in hopes of benefit for all involved. However, it would be appropriate to say that self-interest was the most important driving factor for American policy and can be exemplified through economic, social, and political relations.
Works Cited "American President Ronald Wilson Reagan: Impact and Legacy." Miller Center. University of Virginia, n.d. -. Web. The Web.
These documents touch on important topics that a lot of Americans have a hard time understanding. Both The Civil Rights movement and Feminist Movement connect to mainstream liberalism, share parallel goals or differences, progressed in the 1970s, and still have an influence on American’s views to this day. Equal rights among all, is still something America is struggling with after about 50 years. There is no denying though, that the movements during the 60’s and 70’s molded the lives of future generations in the way that American’s view each other as human beings.
He also enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, prohibiting literacy tests in areas in which the amount of voters was under a certain number, which forced many southern states to allow more blacks to vote. As a result of his presidency, the poor and minorities enjoyed significant benefits from the more favorable legislations and more successful American legislation. 2.... ... middle of paper ... ... 3.
Commentators whipped both Carter's arrangements to give up control of the Panama Canal and his reaction to Soviet animosity in Afghanistan by hauling out of the Olympics and completion the offer of wheat to the Russians. His acknowledgment of socialist China, which developed Nixon's China approach, and his arrangement of new arms control concurrences with the Soviets, were both condemned by moderates in the Republican Party. Yet, the most genuine emergency of Carter's administration included Iran. At the point when the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power there, the U.S. offered haven to the sickly Shah, irritated the new Iranian government, which then urged understudy aggressors to storm the American consulate and assume control fifty Americans prisoner. Carter's inadequate treatment of the tremendously broadcast prisoner emergency, and the shocking fizzled endeavor to protect them in 1980, destined his administration, despite the fact that he arranged their discharge instantly before leaving office.
http://www.cartercenter.org/news/experts/jimmy_carter.html, Revised 2/22/2011 by Steven H. Hochman, © 2011 The Carter Center. All Rights Reserved, accessed May 23, 2011
Transformational leadership theory emphasizes on how a leader can acquire the ability to affect and motivate his followers to succeed beyond expectations. A transformational leader is one, whose vision for the future motivates and excites his followers. For this reason, a transformational leader is judged according to what he achieves as opposed to his character. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter was the least charismatic leader of all the American presidents. However, his use of transformational leadership to develop his agenda and vision was unprecedented. Furthermore, a transformational leader is more likely to be effective in a chaotic environment. Carter was faced with a stagnant economy, double-digit inflation, and oil and gas shortages.
O’Connor’s view on abortion rights varied with circumstances, but were generally favorable towards the female public’s desires. She was seen as the Supreme Court’s swing vote on all abortion issues. O’Connor’s proactive view on woman’s rights helped forge the way for woman in the workplace. She inspired many woman to pursue their dream of working in the legal and political field, showing them it was possible for women to hold a high position in government. Her status even inspired women to attend college and push for careers not necessarily related to politics.
302-308. Offner, Arnold. A. A. “‘Another Such Victory’: President Truman, American Foreign Policy, and the Cold War.” Taking Sides: Clashing Views On Controversial Issues in United States History.
Richard Neustadt today is a professor of politics and has written many books on subjects pertaining to government and the inter workings of governments. He has many years of personal experience working with the government along with the knowledge of what makes a president powerful. He has worked under President Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. His credibility of politics has enhanced his respect in the field of politics. His works are studied in many Universities and he is considered well versed in his opinions of many different presidents. It is true that he seems to use Truman and Eisenhower as the main examples in this book and does show the reader the mistakes he believes were made along the way in achieving power.
The American Presidency is undoubtedly one of the most widely recognized popular icons throughout the world. Although to most foreigners or those who have never resided in the United States or know little of its history, the executive branch of government may seem to be as dull and unyielding as the rest of the American politics, for those few rare individuals who have taken the time to examine and closely scrutinize this office of the American political system and its recent history, quite the opposite will be said. Unlike Congressional or local elections where typically a number of individuals of the same ideological background must be elected in order for a particular issue to be addressed by the government, when it comes to the presidency, one person, although checked by various other divisions of the same government, has the power and responsibility to literally, as history has proven, change the world. The American people, "like all people everywhere, want to have our (political) cake and eat it too. We want a lot of leadership, but we are notoriously lousy followers" (Genovese). In other words the expectations the public has of the executive office are ever-changing since we demand that our leaders keep up with the evolving world around us and them. Throughout the past seventy eventful years alone, the American people's views, perceptions and demands of the Executive Office of American government have evolved simultaneously with the political and social events of that same time period.
In my comparison and analysis of all members of former President Bush’s cabinet and President Obama’s cabinet I found a difference in the design of their respective cabinets and Mills’ predictions and understanding for the elite in The Power Elite. Differences arose in the cabinets themselves, but many arose between the cabinets and Mills’ predictions. After World War II, “Mills famously argued, a ‘triangle of power’ emerged in the United States” (Whitfield). His triangle included leadership from the executive, corporate, and military realms of America.