NOTE: I made some edits to this shortly after President Carter's passing on 12/29/2024.
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, one of the least effective Democratic presidents, especially domestically, of the last 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. According to a History Channel documentary on the U.S. presidents, Carter literally, physically stood in the way of the then-Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem 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. It should be noted that Carter did prioritize human rights in Argentina, Chile, Brazil, and Nicaragua.
On domestic policy, Carter's record is even weaker. He can claim virtually no truly sweeping progressive 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 even though such spending was a net plus economically and could have been a useful bargaining chip for his broader priorities.
Such a fractuous relationship with his own party is why, among many reasons, Carter failed to achieve his promised consumer protection reforms, welfare reforms, a more robust economic stimulus package than what ultimately passed in 1977, and a national health care program. On health care specifically, 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 right to choose and sparred with Democrats on Medicaid funding for abortion coverage.
On the environment, Carter could claim a strong record, as he spurred the creation of Superfund sites (among other key reforms), an issue that came to the forefront because of the 1978 Love Canal disaster, and protected more swaths of land. Lastly, unfortunately, Carter's economic policies also gave way to the deregulation and austerity that would become the hallmark of the Reagan era. In hindsight, Carter's Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker's raising of interest rates in 1979-82 harmed millions of Americans who would later benefit from their *lowering* in 1983 instead. Further, trucking, rail, and airline deregulations were largely harmful as well.
However, what is 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 the State Children's Health Insurance Program was created, he expanded health insurance for low-income children. Carter also spearheaded the modern U.S. refugee system, presided over still record inflation-adjusted funding for legal services for the poor, pardoned draft-dodgers, created the Federal Emergency Management Administration, enacted surveillance reforms, and greatly diversified the federal judiciary.
So, what to make of Carter's mixed legacy? Arguably, on the whole, as president, he was *okay* at best and sadly politically inept as he failed to take advantage of 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. Undeniably though overall, Jimmy Carter left the world a better place as a human.
Such a fractuous relationship with his own party is why, among many reasons, Carter failed to achieve his promised consumer protection reforms, welfare reforms, a more robust economic stimulus package than what ultimately passed in 1977, and a national health care program. On health care specifically, 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 right to choose and sparred with Democrats on Medicaid funding for abortion coverage.
On the environment, Carter could claim a strong record, as he spurred the creation of Superfund sites (among other key reforms), an issue that came to the forefront because of the 1978 Love Canal disaster, and protected more swaths of land. Lastly, unfortunately, Carter's economic policies also gave way to the deregulation and austerity that would become the hallmark of the Reagan era. In hindsight, Carter's Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker's raising of interest rates in 1979-82 harmed millions of Americans who would later benefit from their *lowering* in 1983 instead. Further, trucking, rail, and airline deregulations were largely harmful as well.
However, what is 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 the State Children's Health Insurance Program was created, he expanded health insurance for low-income children. Carter also spearheaded the modern U.S. refugee system, presided over still record inflation-adjusted funding for legal services for the poor, pardoned draft-dodgers, created the Federal Emergency Management Administration, enacted surveillance reforms, and greatly diversified the federal judiciary.
So, what to make of Carter's mixed legacy? Arguably, on the whole, as president, he was *okay* at best and sadly politically inept as he failed to take advantage of 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. Undeniably though overall, Jimmy Carter left the world a better place as a human.
No comments:
Post a Comment