ADVERTISEMENT

Jimmy Carter’s Presidency Was Not What You Think

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
78,476
60,600
113
By Kai Bird
Mr. Bird is the director of the Leon Levy Center for Biography and the author of “The Outlier: The Unfinished Presidency of Jimmy Carter.”
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
The man was not what you think. He was tough. He was extremely intimidating. Jimmy Carter was probably the most intelligent, hard-working and decent man to have occupied the Oval Office in the 20th century.
When I was regularly interviewing him a few years ago, he was in his early 90s yet was still rising with the dawn and getting to work early. I once saw him conduct a meeting at 7 a.m. at the Carter Center where he spent 40 minutes pacing back and forth onstage, explaining the details of his program to wipe out Guinea worm disease. He was relentless. Later that day he gave me, his biographer, exactly 50 minutes to talk about his White House years. Those bright blue eyes bore into me with an alarming intensity. But he was clearly more interested in the Guinea worms.
Mr. Carter remains the most misunderstood president of the last century. A Southern liberal, he knew racism was the nation’s original sin. He was a progressive on the issue of race, declaring in his first address as Georgia’s governor, in 1971, that “the time for racial discrimination is over,” to the extreme discomfort of many Americans, including his fellow Southerners. And yet, as someone who had grown up barefoot in the red soil of Archery, a tiny hamlet in South Georgia, he was steeped in a culture that had known defeat and occupation. This made him a pragmatist.
The gonzo journalist Hunter Thompson once described Mr. Carter as one of the “meanest men” he had ever met. Mr. Thompson meant ruthless and ambitious and determined to win power — first the Georgia governorship and then the presidency. A post-Watergate, post-Vietnam War era of disillusionment with the notion of American exceptionalism was the perfect window of opportunity for a man who ran his campaign largely on the issue of born-again religiosity and personal integrity. “I’ll never lie to you,” he said repeatedly on the campaign trail, to which his longtime lawyer Charlie Kirbo quipped that he was going to “lose the liar vote.” Improbably, Mr. Carter won the White House in 1976.
Story continues below advertisement
Continue reading the main story


He decided to use power righteously, ignore politics and do the right thing. He was, in fact, a fan of the establishment’s favorite Protestant theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr, who wrote, “It is the sad duty of politics to establish justice in a sinful world.” Mr. Carter was a Niebuhrian Southern Baptist, a church of one, a true outlier. He “thought politics was sinful,” said his vice president, Walter Mondale. “The worst thing you could say to Carter if you wanted him to do something was that it was politically the best thing to do.” Mr. Carter routinely rejected astute advice from his wife, Rosalynn, and others to postpone politically costly initiatives, like the Panama Canal treaties, to his second term.
His presidency is remembered, simplistically, as a failure, yet it was more consequential than most recall. He delivered the Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel, the SALT II arms control agreement, normalization of diplomatic and trade relations with China and immigration reform. He made the principle of human rights a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, planting the seeds for the unraveling of the Cold War in Eastern Europe and Russia.
He deregulated the airline industry, paving the way for middle-class Americans to fly for the first time in large numbers, and he regulated natural gas, laying the groundwork for our current energy independence. He worked to require seatbelts or airbags, which would go on to save 9,000 American lives each year. He inaugurated the nation’s investment in research on solar energy and was one of the first presidents to warn us about the dangers of climate change. He rammed through the Alaska Land Act, tripling the size of the nation’s protected wilderness areas. His deregulation of the home-brewing industry opened the door to America’s thriving boutique beer industry. He appointed more African Americans, Hispanics and women to the federal bench, substantially increasing their numbers.
But some of his controversial decisions, at home and abroad, were just as consequential. He took Egypt off the battlefield for Israel, but he always insisted that Israel was also obligated to suspend building new settlements in the West Bank and allow the Palestinians a measure of self-rule. Over the decades, he would argue that the settlements had become a roadblock to a two-state solution and a peaceful resolution of the conflict. He was not afraid to warn everyone that Israel was taking a wrong turn on the road to apartheid. Sadly, some critics injudiciously concluded that he was being anti-Israel or worse.
In the aftermath of the Iranian revolution, Mr. Carter rightly resisted for many months the lobbying of Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and his own national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to give the deposed shah political asylum. Mr. Carter feared that to do so would inflame Iranian passions and endanger our embassy in Tehran. He was right. Just days after he reluctantly acceded and the shah checked into a New York hospital, our embassy was seized. The 444-day hostage crisis severely wounded his presidency.
Story continues below advertisement
Continue reading the main story


But Mr. Carter refused to order any military retaliations against the rogue regime in Tehran. That would have been the politically easy thing to do, but he also knew it would endanger the lives of the hostages. Diplomacy, he insisted, would work. And yet now we have good evidence that Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager Bill Casey made a secret trip to Madrid in the summer of 1980, where he may have met with a representative of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and thus prolonged the hostage crisis. If this is true, such interference in the hostage negotiations sought to deny the Carter administration an October surprise, a release of the hostages late in the campaign, and it was dirty politics and a raw deal for the American hostages.
Mr. Carter’s presidency was virtually scandal free. He often spent 12 hours or more in the Oval Office reading 200 pages of memos a day. He was intent on doing the right thing and right away.
But there were political consequences to such righteousness. In 1976, while he won the electoral votes of the South and the union, Jewish and Black popular votes, by 1980, the only large margin Mr. Carter sustained was among Black voters. Even evangelicals deserted him because he had insisted on stripping tax-exempt status from all-white religious academies.
The majority of the country rejected him as a president way ahead of his time: too much of a Georgian Yankee for the New South and too much of an outlier populist for the North. If the election in 1976 offered hope for a healing of the racial divide, his defeat signaled that the country was reverting to a conservative era of harsh partisanship. It was a tragic narrative familiar to any Southerner.
Mr. Carter’s loss of a second term momentarily plunged him into depression. But then one night, in January 1982, Mrs. Carter was startled to see him sitting up in bed, wide-awake. She asked him if he was feeling ill. “I know what we can do,” he replied. “We can develop a place to help people who want to resolve disputes.” This was the beginning of the Carter Center, an institution devoted to conflict resolution, public health initiatives and election monitoring around the world.
Story continues below advertisement
Continue reading the main story


If I once believed that Mr. Carter was the only president to use the White House as a steppingstone to greater things, I see now that the past 43 years have really been an extension of what he thought of as his unfinished presidency. In or out of the White House, Mr. Carter devoted his life to solving problems, like an engineer, by paying attention to the minutiae of a complicated world. He once told me that he hoped to outlive the last Guinea worm. Last year there were only 13 cases of Guinea worm disease in humans. He may have succeeded.

 
I kind of look at Jimmy the way a lot of Dems look at GW. I think he's a great guy, would love to hang with him, has a real heart for the American people, wanted to absolutely do the right thing, and was given a pretty shit hand as President. I think he made some poor decisions though and it had a lot of downstream impacts that if he could do over, my guess he would. You win some, you lose some...he won't be on my Mt Rushmore anytime soon.

Edit to add: I did not know this fact though - and could be swayed to include him.

"His deregulation of the home-brewing industry opened the door to America’s thriving boutique beer industry. "
 
I kind of look at Jimmy the way a lot of Dems look at GW. I think he's a great guy, would love to hang with him, has a real heart for the American people, wanted to absolutely do the right thing, and was given a pretty shit hand as President. I think he made some poor decisions though and it had a lot of downstream impacts that if he could do over, my guess he would. You win some, you lose some...he won't be on my Mt Rushmore anytime soon.

Edit to add: I did not know this fact though - and could be swayed to include him.

"His deregulation of the home-brewing industry opened the door to America’s thriving boutique beer industry. "
Billy Beer bisches. His brother, Billy, was a complete loon. Kinda funny.
 
Carters downfall was he was a micro manager. Probably why he aged so much in 4 years…didn’t have a great relationship with the Democratic Congress either


 
The revisionist history by leftists on the worst presidency of the 20th century is gonna be something over the next few weeks.
Uh huh...
Deficits...

President Jimmy Carter​

Total = $253 billion
  • FY 1981: $79 billion
  • FY 1980: $74 billion
  • FY 1979: $41 billion
  • FY 1978: $59 billion

President Ronald Reagan (first term)​

Total = $733 billion (nearly half a trillion dollars more than Carter)
  • FY 1985: $212 billion
  • FY 1984: $185 billion
  • FY 1983: $208 billion
  • FY 1982: $128 billion


And Reagan barely slowed down.

President Ronald Reagan (second term)​

Total = another $679 billion
  • FY 1989: $153 billion
  • FY 1988: $155 billion
  • FY 1987: $150 billion
  • FY 1986: $221 billion

Deficits didn't matter then, though. Except for Carter's. But that was different.

And before you start, with a single excpetion out of eight, the budgets Reagan submitted had larger projected deficits than the budgets that passed and were signed, so it wasn't Congress doing it - they trimmed back on Reagan's wish list.
 
His decision to boycott the Olympics was poor. The grain embargo decision was poor. His decision to attempt to extricate the hostages with delta was high risk with a lot percentage chance of success.

Having said that, he was a good man. After Nixon, the country needed a good man. He made mistakes as noted but he got a bunch of stuff done during his presidency that laid the groundwork for the success over the next 20 years or so.

The article posted is certainly slanted, but so is the response from @hawkland14
 
Uh huh...
Deficits...

President Jimmy Carter​

Total = $253 billion
  • FY 1981: $79 billion
  • FY 1980: $74 billion
  • FY 1979: $41 billion
  • FY 1978: $59 billion

President Ronald Reagan (first term)​

Total = $733 billion (nearly half a trillion dollars more than Carter)
  • FY 1985: $212 billion
  • FY 1984: $185 billion
  • FY 1983: $208 billion
  • FY 1982: $128 billion


And Reagan barely slowed down.

President Ronald Reagan (second term)​

Total = another $679 billion
  • FY 1989: $153 billion
  • FY 1988: $155 billion
  • FY 1987: $150 billion
  • FY 1986: $221 billion

Deficits didn't matter then, though. Except for Carter's. But that was different.

And before you start, with a single excpetion out of eight, the budgets Reagan submitted had larger projected deficits than the budgets that passed and were signed, so it wasn't Congress doing it - they trimmed back on Reagan's wish list.
Deficits only matter to Republicans when Democrats are in the White House. Reagan’s deficits don’t count. In fact, his tax cuts certainly didn’t make the deficit worse, they made them lower than they would have been.
 
Photolink to Jimmy in India. He was a good sport. India's biggest mistake has been sucking Russian dick for time immemoriam and they will learn that huge error with interest, very soon. There are lots of Indian Americans who yearn for India and the US to be close but a lot of losers who don't want that. Anyways, fun photos from a time long gone by.

 
I was too young when he was president so I will leave the politics of it to the rest of you.

Seemed like a good guy though. Did a lot of good post presidency to help a lot of people.
 
And before you start, with a single excpetion out of eight, the budgets Reagan submitted had larger projected deficits than the budgets that passed and were signed, so it wasn't Congress doing it - they trimmed back on Reagan's wish list.


So Reagan signed budgets passed by a Democrat controlled Congress….all 8 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GlenHawk
And yet now we have good evidence that Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager Bill Casey made a secret trip to Madrid in the summer of 1980, where he may have met with a representative of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and thus prolonged the hostage crisis. If this is true, such interference in the hostage negotiations sought to deny the Carter administration an October surprise, a release of the hostages late in the campaign, and it was dirty politics and a raw deal for the American hostages.

Ah, yes. The October Surprise Conspiracy Theory that Democrats continue to tout even though both houses of Congress investigated it extensively in the early 90s and determined there was insufficient evidence.
 
I was too young when he was president so I will leave the politics of it to the rest of you.

Seemed like a good guy though. Did a lot of good post presidency to help a lot of people.
I voted for Ford and (to my utter dismay) Reagan, but Carter was a good man and exceptionally smart. Had the hostage rescue been successful - and we had solid intel from the inside on where everyone was - he would have beaten Reagan, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torg and GOHOX69
So Reagan signed budgets passed by a Democrat controlled Congress….all 8 years.
Shhh......Dont bring them facts around here.
That. Were. Smaller. Than. The. Budgets. Reagan. Proposed.

So, I assume, you're actually celebrating those Congresses that kept Reagan in check and thanking your deficit-starred eyeballs that it wasn't the GOP in charge??? Or do facts not matter after all?
 
That. Were. Smaller. Than. The. Budgets. Reagan. Proposed.

So, I assume, you're actually celebrating those Congresses that kept Reagan in check and thanking your deficit-starred eyeballs that it wasn't the GOP in charge??? Or do facts not matter after all?
They are going to ignore those facts. Facts aren’t fun
 
Deficits only matter to Republicans when Democrats are in the White House. Reagan’s deficits don’t count. In fact, his tax cuts certainly didn’t make the deficit worse, they made them lower than they would have been.
Now do Obama and Biden deficits.
 
The argument would either be Harding(corruption) or Wilson(complete ignoring of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights)
Maybe, I don't know. I'm not up to speed enough on those two to compare. Wilson tried to get the US to join the league of nations and failed and was President during WWI, which is all I can really say about them off the top of my head. The point is, while Carter had a rough 4 years, it wasn't the worst in the 20th century and it seems to be a thing on the far right to completely exaggerate his Presidency. And at least he tried to do something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blhawk
Quite a bit of revisionist history. 1976 was the first year I voted. I voted for Jimmy.

First of all, he wasn't a liberal Southern Democrat. Not as a governor, and not as POTUS. He was fiscally conservative. On some social issues he was conservative.

A few observations about things happening at the time, but Carter isn't responsible for -
Nixon set relations with China in motion. Carter simply carried that forward.
Ralph Nader was the person most responsible for increasing vehicle safety.

Voters rejected him in 1980 because of the energy embargo, massive inflation, and the failed Operation Eagle Claw. Believe it or not, evangelicals care about their personal finances more than they care about a pious POTUS.

Jimmy was, and is, a great man, and was an excellent Governor. Jimmy was arguably one of the worst POTUS ever. The author is right about Jimmy not doing what was politically expedient. Jimmy underestimated the power inside the beltway. The military nd intelligence communities hated Jimmy. Reagan was a beacon for them when he ran for POTUS. Liberal Dems from the Northeast and California hated Jimmy because he wasn't their idea of what a liberal should be.
That. Were. Smaller. Than. The. Budgets. Reagan. Proposed.

So, I assume, you're actually celebrating those Congresses that kept Reagan in check and thanking your deficit-starred eyeballs that it wasn't the GOP in charge??? Or do facts not matter after all?
Reagan made a deal with Tip O'Neal. More domestic spending in exchange for enough military spending to bring down the wall. Just like Ireland a few years ago, politicians see a large increase in revenue and go out of their way to go on a reckless spending spree.
 
Reagan made a deal with Tip O'Neal. More domestic spending in exchange for enough military spending to bring down the wall. Just like Ireland a few years ago, politicians see a large increase in revenue and go out of their way to go on a reckless spending spree.
The AEI loves Reagan so I trust their numbers. Adjusted for inflation, Reagan got cuts in non-defense spending of nearly 10% in his first four years so the deal was to not cut it even more. And for that, he got defense spending raised by more than 25%.

20040609_Table1_350.jpg
 
Carter is an honorable man that got dealt a shifty hand as president. I would take honorable as a president now regardless of political party. All day every day. We would be lucky to have a Carter type politician appear on the scene right now
 
Carter is an honorable man that got dealt a shifty hand as president. I would take honorable as a president now regardless of political party. All day every day. We would be lucky to have a Carter type politician appear on the scene right now
Even if he’s not good at his job?
 
Last edited:
Lol. Losing an election doesn't mean he wasn't good at his job or wouldn't be good at the job again.

He is an honorable man which innthiw culture would mean more to most than many other attributes
Carter is a good man. When you're the incumbent and lose by 8M and there's John Anderson pulling down another 6M mostly right of center votes....it's quite the indictment of your job performance. Not to mention getting a prominent primary opponent from your own party (Kennedy).

It is what it is...
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkedoff
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT