more involved in intervening in the affairs of other countries [than Carter].
The Carter administration was the first to attempt to make the internal human rights violations of other countries a valid American concern. The extent to which he was able to bully his vision into other lands was, of course, quite limited in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam War. Nevertheless, the humanitarian concerns raised by Carter were the most agressive attempt to that point to impose American values elsewhere.
Reagan, on the other hand, was concerned primarily with the security of the United States. His actions reflect a tough, level-headed global leader. Whether it was the arms build-up or SDI, he was fighting to defend our way of life at home. Certainly, Reagan did flavor his main course of national security with humanitarian side dishes, but they were nothing more than that.
3 comments:
Then my entire question is rendered moot, having been built on a premise more enfeebled than a house of cards in a rainstorm.
I don't believe that the rosa should concede so easily. Reagan was certainly interventionist, but his interventionism was more along the lines of an Eisenhower (i.e. more narrowly focused on the national interest, e.g. Guatemala 1954). For example, the Reagan bombing of Libya in 1986, the invasion of Grenada a few years prior. I think it may be a bit of a stretch to characterize Carter as more interventionist solely because he wished to make human rights a priority of American foreign policy.
Damien's comments are true. But Carter was also hamstrung in what he could do internationally because his administration began in the shadow of Vietnam. By the time Reagan was elected, and certainly by the time of Grenada and Libya and Iran-Contra, Vietnam had become much more of a lesson from the past.
Post a Comment