Quote Originally Posted by Pindar
The fact Carter abandoned Taiwan and recognized the PRC and did so while Congress was in recess for the holidays would serve as a simple counter-example to this point.
Not so sure of this Pindar. Carter's crew was very much in the "open relations up and talk about the need for human rights" vein. They took a similar approach with the Soviets as well -- part of the reason Carter felt so "betrayed" by Brezhnev's incursion into Afghanistan. To which he responded with a ringing Olympic Boycott.

I believe the Carter Asministration was very consistently in favor of:

Opening dialogue, usually without pre-conditions, with any nation. Making Human Rights and the pressure to improve same a consistent element of those dialogues. Using military "show the flag" efforts only sparingly. Downplaying our support for traditional allies in the Cold War in favor of broader and more benign relations with all.

I also think the relationship gains made were outweighed by the debacles generated -- the mess created by removing the Shah in Iran, which helped create the conditions for the Soviet effort to take over Afghanistan, the deal with Sadat that made the USA a primary target for the wahabists as well as the Shia Khomenists -- so I am not a fan of Carter's efforts.

He did create a sense of the USA being consistent with its stated moral purpose in the minds of our Eurpoean allies. Since that dovetailed so nicely with their moral/global outlook, it has also made virtually any other stance by a U.S. leader inherently unpopular. Carter was creating the kind of consistency that Europe liked.

Not enough value generated there to make me a fan.