Although it may be a harsh indictment to hand down on President Carter right before I meet him, I am convinced that he is, probably and sadly, the worst Democratic president of the 20th century. On the flip side, he is, arguably, one of the greatest ex-presidents in American history: crisscrossing the world to solve problems like malaria and hunger and rightfully earning the Nobel Peace Prize for such work. It is emblematic of Carter's decidedly mixed legacy that he earns both of these unique distinctions.
Indeed, as president, Carter's record is mixed, at best. On the one hand, he scored crucial foreign policy victories which were in our best interests and strengthened peace around the world. In fact, he owned his ostensible advancement of "peace" as a central theme of his 1980 reelection bid, clearly an effort to distinguish himself from the more hawkish Ronald Reagan.
He was the key, instrumental force in ensuring the success of the Camp David Accords, the 1978 peace agreement between Egypt and Israel which strengthened Israeli security despite the current gripes about Carter being supposedly anti-Semitic. According to a History Channel documentary on the U.S. presidents, Carter literally, physically stood in the way of the Israeli leader, Mr. Begin, from leaving the site of Camp David and insisted that the two sides come to an agreement.
Carter also concluded the Nixon-initiated process of establishing diplomatic relations with China, he agreed to return the Panama Canal to Panama (at great political risk since it was one of the core issues Reagan capitalized on to build his success), and his leadership in the Algiers Accords ensured there would be a diplomatic solution to the Iran hostage crisis, rather than a dangerous bombing campaign.
On the other hand, his foreign policy portfolio was muddled by internal disagreements that tarnished his record even in this area. The rift between the hawkish Zbigniew Brzezinski and the more dovish Cyrus Vance made Carter's Cold War policies a total mess, especially in the African continent where the U.S. was mired in efforts to squash Communist actors, in the deadly aftermath of the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, and in the hasty response to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. On Iran matters, Carter was all over the place too: he promised to strengthen human rights but then proudly embraced the Shah but also pushed for specific reforms in the country but also brought in the Shah for medical treatment.
On domestic policy, Carter's record is even weaker. He can claim virtually no major legislative policy achievements here. He had enormous Democratic majorities in Congress and could not get along with members of his own party. He bizarrely refused to provide for jobs spending in members' districts despite it being a net plus and being crucial to advancing vital causes of his.
That's why, among many reasons, Carter failed to achieve consumer protection reforms, welfare reforms, a more robust economic stimulus package than what passed in 1977, and a national health care program. On the latter front, Carter actually backtracked from supporting single-payer in 1976 and enraged Ted Kennedy so much with his noncommittal attitude that nothing happened. On abortion, Carter was also disappointing, as he would not fully commit to supporting a woman's right to choose and sparred with Democrats on Medicaid funding in this arena.
On the environment, Carter could claim a strong record, as he spurred the creation of Superfund sites (among other key reforms), but these issues only came to the forefront because of the 1978 Love Canal disaster. Lastly, unfortunately, Carter's economic policies also gave way to the kind of deregulation and austerity that would become the hallmark of the Reagan era. In hindsight, the raising of interest rates, which did no good in 1979-81 for millions of Americans who would later benefit from their *lowering in 1983 instead, and the deregulation of trucking, among some other industries, were largely harmful.
However, what's also true is that Carter was rather prescient on some matters in domestic policy. His creation of a Department of Energy and his 1979 crisis of confidence speech, in which he warned against overconsumption, as well as putting solar panels on the White House, were bold moves. He also was the first president to meet with gay rights activists in the White House and, long before SCHIP was created, he expanded health insurance for low-income children.
So, what to make of Carter's mixed legacy? Arguably, on the whole, as president, he was not very good, he was politically inept, and he failed to take advantage of existing advantages, like those huge Democratic majorities he enjoyed, to advance a comprehensive agenda. He was a victim of his own management style too, as he relied too heavily on micromanagement, became too mired in intricate details, and stubbornly refused to make reasonable compromises with Democrats.
On the whole though, Carter is a good, decent person, as evidenced by the amazing work he has done since leaving office, he had a mostly fine foreign policy legacy, and he does deserve credit for being ahead of his time on some key progressive matters. However, he should not have been the Democratic Party's nominee in 1976 as the damage he did to the party, both politically and on policy, was long-lasting.
No comments:
Post a Comment