Five Reasons Carter Wasn’t So Bad

Carter has been maligned for being a weak, ineffective, micromanaging president. Randall Balmer begs to differ. To be sure, Carter had his weaknesses (and in his biography Redeemer, Balmer acknowledges them, including a sordid account of race-baiting during his gubernatorial campaign of 1970). But he points out that Carter’s presidency was sabotaged by events quite beyond his control—and that his significant accomplishments have been unfairly obscured. Here is Balmer’s attempt at rehabilitation:

  1. Human rights: Carter moved American foreign policy away from a reactive preoccupation with the Cold War toward a posture animated by human rights. He collected data on human rights abuses, which then informed his negotiations with foreign nations. This was a much more nuanced approach (and thus not politically savvy) but a necessary one in the twilight of the Cold War. Argentinian dissident Jacobo Timerman, said, “It was the first time—and I fear the last—in this violent and criminal century that a major power has defended human rights all over the world.” Balmer credits Carter with helping to arrange the release of 30,000 political prisoners in Indonesia and with the immigration of 118,000 Soviet Jews.
  2. Panama Canal: Carter also oversaw the return of the Panama Canal. A instrument of American power in Central and South America for nearly a century, the canal had served important military and trade purposes for the United States. The construction of the canal had been a tawdry affair, however, and the canal was a symbol of American imperialism. Wallace Nuttig, a commander of U.S. forces in Latin America in the late 1970s, described the return of the canal to Panama as “one of the most magnanimous acts in history by a great power.” Like Carter’s advocacy on human rights, the return of the Canal added an important moral dimension to American diplomacy.
  3. Camp David Accords: In the wake of two wars between Israel and Egypt in 1967 and 1973, Carter also tried to address knotty Mideast politics. Enjoying significant support from evangelicals associated with Billy Graham and Christianity Today, Carter’s efforts resulted in the Camp David Accords. The culmination of a dramatic 13-day summit between Israel’s Menachem Begin and Egypt’s Anwar el-Sadat, the Accords provided for Palestinian self-rule, the return of the Sinai to Egypt, and a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. While the region has not remained stable, it is not difficult to imagine a world in which conditions could be far worse because Israel and Egypt had gone to war again.
  4. Nuclear non-proliferation: On June 18, 1979, in Vienna, Carter and Leonid Brezhnev signed the SALT II treaty that significantly limited the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Billy Graham threw his substantial support toward trying to end nuclear proliferation. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan meant that the treaty would not be ratified in the United States. But again, Carter sought to move away from Cold War dualisms and toward détente. These efforts would pay off in the 1980s.
  5. A theology of limits: While Carter’s invocation of Niebuhr sometimes led to race-baiting, his seriousness about Christian faith (which motivated many of the just-discussed policies) led to some remarkable sermonizing at the White House. Perhaps the most important (and politically reviled) was the so-called “malaise speech” of July 15, 1979. Near the end of his presidency (marred by economic stagnation and an energy crisis), Carter secluded himself at Camp David where he tried to make sense of it all. He read Scripture and Schumacher’s Small Is Beautiful. He met with Christopher Lasch, author of The Culture of Narcissism. He emerged from the compound speaking about “a crisis of the American spirit” in the tone of an evangelical jeremiad: “In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities and our faith in God, too many of us now worship self-indulgence and consumption.” “Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but by what one owns,” Carter sermonized, but “owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning.” Critics may have panned Carter’s idealistic approach to the energy crisis as politically naïve, but it was nonetheless a penetrating cultural critique. He was probably the most theologically profound president since Lincoln.
"Who says we are a secular nation? You and atheists? Where did you get that? ..."

Evangelical Silence and Trump: A Reformation ..."
"Personal attack. Once you run out of reason fuel and facts, you engage in personal ..."

Evangelical Silence and Trump: A Reformation ..."
">>>"Read your responses to my comment and see whom is truly the one making 'personal ..."

Evangelical Silence and Trump: A Reformation ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • stefanstackhouse

    Carter had the misfortune of being President during a terrible time. Absolutely everything was going wrong. (And I know, I lived through it.) I am certain that if Reagan had managed to best Ford for the Republican nomination and then gone on to win the 1976 election (a very plausible counterfactual), Reagan would today be remembered as a failed, one-term president.

  • billmcreynolds

    Mortgage rates were 18%. If more recent presidents are held accountable for their disastrous policies, economic and otherwise, why not President Carter. Speaking as someone who was encouraged that the nation had elected a Southern, (evangelical?) Christian President, I feel he left office as the worst president in recent memory. Point #5 in particular, I remember: if you are cold because you can’t afford heating oil, stop whining and put on another sweater!

  • stefanstackhouse

    I’m not saying that Carter performed well, only that I doubt that Reagan or most other recent Presidents would have done much better under the circumstances. I’m not sure that even Ike would have performed all that well, and he is the best one we’ve had within my lifetime.

  • philipjenkins

    It’s an interesting question. Take your absolute favorite president, whoever he might be – what could they have done in the circumstances of 1976, foreign and domestic? Certainly Reagan would have faced an utterly different situation in 1976 than he did in 1980. Not to defend Carter, but it was a nightmare.

    Anyway, we can’t know what would have happened.

  • David

    Carter inherited a mess from Nixon. Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold in 1971 which was the impetus for the massive inflation in the late 70’s. It wouldn’t have mattered who was president they would have had to deal with the situation.

  • billmcreynolds

    And my suggestion was simply that Carter did not deal well with the situation he inherited.

  • Kangaroo52

    I’m not sure what he could have done that he didn’t do. He could have nationalized the oil industry and have had a civil war on his hands. Anything else wouldn’t have eased energy costs.

  • philipjenkins

    Responding to your note above about Reagan: You may well be right about the one term thing. Or impeached, even.

  • David

    An okay article until the last line. Lincoln was a “theologically profound president”? You have got to be kidding me! He was a tyrant and responsible for undoing the constitution more than any other president except perhaps Wilson. His presidency was the beginning of the end of limited government and states rights.

  • Kangaroo52

    You say that like it’s something bad.

  • https://twitter.com/DykeVanTom Tom Van Dyke
  • Kangaroo52

    Carter’s defeat in 1980 proved once and for all the right-wing meme about “the liberal media” is bool sheeyit through and through. A real ‘liberal media” wouldn’t have harrangued Carter for the sweaters, malaise, and the killer rabbit. Carter lost in 1980 to the forces of selfishness for one reason only; people were deceived. It’s quite well established that Reagan’s people let it be known to the Iranians that by releasing the hostages AFTER Reagan defeated Carter they’d get a better deal, and they certainly did, replete with arms, called Iran-Contra. The media complicity, including George Will’s theft of Carter’s briefing book, was obvious. It was essentially a coup d’etat in disguise.