275). Carter also believed it would be possible to pursue a detente policy with the Soviets while simultaneously pushing for human rights reforms. The human rights underlying impetus for foreign policy was believed to be a winning strategy, and indeed, conservatives initially showed support for Carter's policies. Democrats also issued their support of Carter's program. The fusion of civil rights with foreign policy is comparable to the way FDR conjoined New Deal programs with the United Nations and its policies such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed in 1948. Carter also understood the major political and human rights blunders the United States was party to during previous generations, supporting anti-democratic and totalitarian regimes just to fight communism. Thus, human rights became a part of the strategic foreign policy objectives of Carter and the democrats. Carter applied his policy to Africa, Latin America, and various regions around the globe. Indeed, much of what Carter was doing in terms of foreign policy was the attempt to redress many of the problems that had already occurred due to American interventionism.

However, Carter's policies soon started to anger conservatives. The Panama Canal turnover was the first issue that won Carter political enemies at home. Carter's actions in Central America caused conservative backlash that...

This grassroots power made it hard for Carter to counter with the Democrats' more traditional lobbying approaches. These are some of the many issues that caused Carter to lose a second term in office. Carter might also have undertaken too difficult a battle, in attempting to promote global human rights. The media began depicting Carter as indecisive, and inept. The Soviet arms control issue resurfaced, as Conservatives criticized Carter for not being aware of the dangers posed by Soviet nuclear capabilities. Increasingly, neo-conservative members of the democratic party started to turn against Carter, especially due to the SALT-II issue related to the Soviet Union.
Carter also ran into trouble in the Middle East and Persia, and his foreign policy in that region could have been the nail in his administration's coffin. The continued support of the Shah conflicted with Carter's human rights advocacy, and made Carter out to be hypocritical. The revolution in Iran was devastating and new fears related to Soviet support of the Islamist insurgency caused Carter to appear seriously weak. During midterm elections, Democrats lost some footing, and ultimately Carter failed to maximize the potential of the Democratic party foreign policy platform.

Work Cited

Zelizer, Julian E. Arsenal of Democracy.…