John Lowell (11:08)
All right, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left mostly praises Carter's legacy, with many emphasizing his character and commitment to service. Some say his policies worsened the problems he sought to solve. Others say his record is unfairly maligned. In the Guardian, Representative Ro Khanna, the Democrat from California, wrote, president Jimmy Carter was an antidote to politics as spectacle. Jimmy Carter represented politics at its highest calling. He reminded me of my grandfather, Amarnath Vidyalankar, an Indian freedom fighter who served in jail as part of Gandhi's independence movement. They both shared a commitment to standing up for principle, khanna said. American politics is different these days. Colleagues on both sides scream at each other in hearings and cling to power long past their mental and physical primes. In frivolous political times like ours, Carter is a refreshing reminder that it is possible to have a politics of dignity and statesmanship. It is no wonder that he won, running on, cutting the defense budget and investing in our infrastructure and our people. Instead, when he took office, he brought a new approach to foreign policy centered on universal human rights. He brokered the historic peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, signed the Panama Canal Treaty, normalized relations with China and negotiated the SALT II arms control agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union, Khanna wrote. I remember visiting his elementary school classroom in Plains where they pointed out his desk and marveling that America had produced none. Only just a young man with such steely ambition, but one who put it in service of our highest ideals. In Jacobin, Nick French said Jimmy Carter worsened the American malaise he decried. In July 1979, Jimmy Carter described a spiritual crisis of confidence that could destroy the social and political fabric of America. But the neoliberal policies of his administration helped make the US a more atomized and mean spirited society, French wrote. These trends that Carter described seem mostly to have gotten worse. Compared to our hyper individualistic, consumption obsessed era, the United States in 1979 must have looked like a beacon of civic mindedness and self restraint. Trust in key institutionsgovernment, churches, public schools and even the news media has continued to plummet. If you wanted the malaise Carter so eloquently bemoaned to metastasize, you could do worse than enacting the very policies his own administration implemented. Cutting taxes, shrinking the welfare state, deregulating the economy and turning away from the increasingly besieged labor movement. These measures paved the way for a few at the top to grow fabulously wealthy while the majority of Americans saw their wages stagnate and their unions destroyed while suffering the consequences of the ultra rich's reckless self serving decisions. Our second Gilded Age of obscene inequality and atomization is the predictable result of such policies. In the Washington Post, Stuart Eisenstot argued history views Carter's legacy and his many accomplishments all wrong. Conventional wisdom holds that Jimmy Carter was a failure as a president, redeemed only by his philanthropy and efforts to promote democracy. In his post presidential years, Carter's accomplishments at home and abroad were more extensive and longer lasting than those of almost all modern presidents. Eisenstadt said Carter helped restore trust in the presidency through ethics reforms more relevant today than ever before. He established the Senior Executive Service and insulated civil service workers against political pressure. He slowed the revolving door for departing officials and placed independent inspectors general in every department. Carter dramatically expanded all major education policies, established the departments of Education and Energy, put the United States on the path to greater energy security from opec, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, deregulated and transformed our entire air and ground transportation system and communications industries, placed consumer advocates in major regulatory agencies and added more land to the national park system than all presidents together since Teddy Roosevelt. Eisenstadt wrote Carter's signature achievement, reached over 13 agonizing days and nights, was the Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt. They led to a peace treaty he personally negotiated which provided security to Israel after five wars with Egypt. Alright, that is it for what the left is saying. Which brings us to what the right is saying. The right mostly criticizes Carter's legacy, suggesting that his presidency was of little historical significance. Some say Carter's greatest contribution to American politics may have been unintentional. Others push back on the praise for Carter's post presidency. In the New York Post, Philip Terzian said Jimmy Carter brought the end of an era in presidential politics. Carter turned out to be very much a transitional figure, his discordant foreign policy and modest domestic agenda more closely resembling a prolonged sunset than a glorious dawn. And he might have seen the twilight coming two years after Watergate and Richard Nixon's resignation in his surprisingly narrow victory over Nixon's appointed successor, Gerald Ford, Terzian said, for by the 1970s the New Deal and Great Society had at long last run out of steam and the Vietnam War had wounded the domestic Cold War consensus. Even the longtime Democratic monopoly on Congress was broken with the Democrats loss of the Senate along with the presidency after Carter's single term. Of course, Carter's presidency had its periodic, even ironic achievements. The Camp David accords, airline deregulation, a path breaking emphasis on human rights and US Diplomacy, Terzian said. Our chronic energy crises, Carter declared, required not just practical measures that could be negotiated with Congress but but the moral equivalent of war. Our foreign entanglements, he said, were needlessly aggravated by an inordinate fear of communism. Carter seemed genuinely surprised to learn on the job that successful governance requires a certain cynicism and horse trading skill. In the Daily Signal, Connie Marschner wrote about Carter's little known role in political history. President Jimmy Carter's personal service to the poor after he left the White House in 1981 is remembered as Christian charity in action. What is not so remembered in his role, albeit unwittingly, in bringing evangelical Christians into the political process, Marschner said. In his first days in his candidacy, Carter threw the mainstream media into a tizzy by proclaiming himself a born again Christian. As reporters scrambled to find out what that meant, Carter's self revelation gave heart to born again Christians. Finally, years after being isolated from the political process, here was somebody they could identify with, one of themselves running for president. Once elected, however, instead of dancing with the folks who brought him, Carter ignored or disavowed his Christian base and instead followed the lead of his appointees who were on the left. First came the attack on parents rights. Then came the attack on traditional family itself. In between was silence on the life issues which evangelicals had come to embrace and the steady advancement of the feminist agenda, marschner wrote. Christian leaders watched in hope that the born again president would hear their concerns and send some signal of support for traditional marriage and family, but he never did. In National Review, Philip Klein argued Carter was an even worse former President than President A popular narrative surrounding the legacy of Jimmy Carter is that as president he was a victim of unlucky timing that impeded him politically, but that he excelled during his long post presidential career. The reality is that he was a terrible president, but an even worse former president, klein said. After being booted out of office in landslide fashion, the self described citizen of the world spent the rest of his life meddling in US Foreign policy and working against the United States and its allies in a manner that could fairly be described as treasonous. His obsessive hatred of Israel and pompous belief that only he could forge Middle east peace led him to befriend terrorists and lash out at American Jews who criticized him. Carter, who performatively carried his own luggage as president, tried to present himself as humble, but somebody actually humble would have taken the hint. By the magnitude of his defeat, the real Jimmy Carter was stubborn and arrogant. He had plans for a second term and he wanted to see them through despite the overwhelming rejection by the American people. So instead of stepping away, he spent the rest of his life simply pretending that he was still president and pursuing foreign policy goals even when it meant undermining the actual president. Alright, let's head over to Isaac for his take.