During the first quarter-century of the Cold War, upholding human rights was rarely a priority in U.S. policy toward Latin America. Seeking to protect U.S. national security, American policymakers quietly cultivated relations with politically ambitious Latin American militaries—a strategy clearly evident in the Ford administration’s tacit support of state-sanctioned terror in Argentina following the 1976 military coup d’état. By the mid-1970s, however, the blossoming human rights movement in the United States posed a serious threat to the maintenance of close U.S. ties to anticommunist, right-wing military regimes. The competition between cold warriors and human rights advocates culminated in a fierce struggle to define U.S. policy during the Jimmy Carter presidency. In The Fate of Freedom Elsewhere, William Michael Schmidli argues that Argentina emerged as the defining test case of Carter’s promise to bring human rights to the center of his administration’s foreign policy. Entering the Oval Office at the height of the kidnapping, torture, and murder of tens of thousands of Argentines by the military government, Carter set out to dramatically shift U.S. policy from subtle support to public condemnation of human rights violation. But could the administration elicit human rights improvements in the face of a zealous military dictatorship, rising Cold War tension, and domestic political opposition? By grappling with the disparate actors engaged in the struggle over human rights, including civil rights activists, second-wave feminists, chicano/a activists, religious progressives, members of the New Right, conservative cold warriors, and business leaders, Schmidli utilizes unique interviews with U.S. and Argentine actors as well as newly declassified archives to offer a telling analysis of the rise, efficacy, and limits of human rights in shaping U.S. foreign policy in the Cold War.

Seminar paper from the year 2005 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Region: USA, grade: 1,7, University of Duisburg-Essen (Politische Theorie), course: Politische Rhetorik, 10 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: The American Dream has always been a central subject in political speeches. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were not the only presidents who referred to it in their speeches. Quite possibly every presidential candidate and president related to it when they accepted their nominations and when they outlined their political programmes at their inaugurations. Ever since it has become part of the tradition of political rhetoric in the United States, one can say how centrally important the American Dream (still) is and what great influence it has on the American people. So what exactly is the American Dream? Peter Freese calls the attempt of defining it "subjective and imcomplete", especially because he is of the opinion that the vision and beliefs transferred in the American Dream change with the times. However, he quotes Hartmut Keil by using his definition of the American Dream with a lot of its beliefs and convictions that are substantial parts of it: "Individual success, advancement, materialism, personal success, neighborliness, naturalness, individuality, freedom, equality, equal opportunity, search for identity, national purpose, American consciousness, democratic dream, dream of paradise (...), moving force, liberation of humanity, world's salvation"; but he comes to the conclusion that there is not the possibility of a precise definition in case one does not want to list nearly every aspect of "American society". Still, the fundamental values and virtues that build the basis and are the core function of the American Dream, are the main part of American political rhetoric. The metaphor of the American Dream has always been used by being glorified by politians in their speeches, and mostly with the promise of fulfilment s