Are human rights still a Democratic priority?

To Democrats of a certain age, such a question might seem incomprehensible. After all, it was a Democrat, John F. Kennedy, whose inaugural address proclaimed "to friend and foe alike" that Americans would resist "the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed." It was another Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who made support for human rights an explicit foreign-policy concern, declaring at his inauguration: "Because we are ... Full Story »

Posted by Leo Romero

See All Reviews »

Review

Elizabeth White-Nadler
3.1
by Elizabeth White-Nadler - Apr. 20, 2009

While it is certainly legitimate to explore this topic in an opinion piece, the author "cherry-picks" through the subject to such a degree that he undermines his own argument. Jacoby ignores the justifications these Democrats might offer for temporarily placing human rights issues on the back burner in some cases, and even the possibility that they believe the best means to achieve progress in human rights is to promote dialogue with the offenders. The piece does not come across as an argument to raise the profile of human rights; it reads simply as criticism or cynical observation, supported by arbitrary anecdotal examples.

I was disappointed when Clinton made the statement she did about China's human rights record; she should have had a nuanced, carefully crafted line to use which indicates our unwavering concern for human rights in China. As for Cuba, the policies for the past 40 years have assured that we could have NO influence over human rights issues there. Reestablishing a dialogue seems like an excellent first step, however ill-advised the statements were of the caucus which visited there.

See All Reviews »

Elizabeth's Rating

Overall
3.1

Average
from 11 answers
Quality
3.2
Information
4.0
Insight
3.0
Style
3.0
Context
2.0
Originality
4.0
Relevance
4.0
Responsibility
2.0
Popularity
2.5
Recommendation
2.0
Credibility
3.0
More How our ratings work »