The Hostage President: Judging Jimmy Carter
I. Introduction
The four years Jimmy Carter spent in office were tumultuous for the economy and international relations. The United States spent 1977 – 1981 under the guidance of a man that desperately wanted to bring change to Washington, and struggled at times to understand how to do so. In many respects, 32 years is not enough time passed to judge a president. Economic, foreign policy, and international relations decisions are sometimes not completely appreciated until decades after they have left office. With that said, it is helpful to gain a greater understanding of Carter as a man and as a leader through an unbiased look at his character, vision, competence, economic policy, ability to extend liberty, and foreign policy, a goal that will be accomplished through the analysis and evaluation in this paper.
II. Character
Jimmy Carter’s character is well summed up by a promise he made during his campaign for the 1976 Presidential Election. In an October 1975 interview with Time, Carter said, “If I ever lie to you, if I ever betray you, then I want you to leave me.” Americans were due for a leader that they could trust, “only in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate could a man who talked like that ever be elected president” (Felzenberg 163). While Carter certainly had struggles during his presidency, and his presidency was not without scandals, all evidence to this day suggests that he was straightforward and honest with the American people at all times. This honesty and trustworthiness is just part of what solidifies the strong character of Carter.
While the handling of the Iran hostage crisis is a black mark on the Carter presidency and greatly damages his reputation in regards to foreign policy, one specific event regarding the crisis emphasizes President Carter as a man of strong character in many minds. Between the election and inauguration of Ronald Reagan, Carter and his team continued to work towards a deal that would free the hostages, reaching one on the morning of inauguration. It is well known that the hostages were released just “minutes after Reagan was officially sworn in as president” in a “final act of humiliation from the Iranians” (Zelizer 128). Rather than sulk in his loss of the highest office in the land and the embarrassment of his last few hours on the job, Carter made an important journey. Carter and several members of his administration met the recently released hostages in Germany for “a private meeting that lasted for eighty minutes…Carter hugged each of the hostages as tears filled their eyes” (Zelizer 128). While he had not been able to reach an agreement in time to save his chances at re-election, his legislative agenda, or his historical legacy; Carter never stopped working for the good of the 66 American hostages until he was able to hold them in his arms, a drive that showed the true character of a caring leader.
The actions of Carter in the years after his presidency also show his character. Carter and the Carter Center have worked with both Republican and Democratic administrations to oversee elections in many tumultuous nations in which the United States has interest. This is an important issue to Carter, “by monitoring elections and pressing for human rights, he and his wife, as Rosalynn said, were working hard to complete the ‘unfinished business’ of his presidency” (Zelizer 136). Along with the aforementioned involvement, Carter has attempted to serve as a sort of diplomat in the Israel-Palestine issue and has even written a book on the subject. To continue to work to improve the world as a whole along with the international perception of the United States rather than simply choosing an easy retirement with all the benefits of a former president, Carter yet again shows his strong character.
There are many areas of Jimmy Carter’s presidency that can and have been brought into question, but his character is untouchable. I give him the highest possible marks in this regard based on his desire for justice, honesty and human rights, desires that he exhibited before, during, and after his four years in the White House.
III. Vision
It is difficult to categorize a specific vision that Jimmy Carter held for the country when running for president, and he was certainly limited in the success of any sort of vision by only serving one term. Carter seems to have been moved more by a vision of the presidency and a change in political climate than a vision for the country itself.
Carter’s campaign showed a vision for a country in which the citizens could once again understand their leaders, and most importantly put faith in them. Carter wanted to give the Oval Office back to the people, saying the “insiders have had their chances and they have not delivered…their time has run out” (Zelizer 48). Carter began this with his grassroots, door-to-door efforts in the campaign, and continued this pattern in the White House when “the president instructed the Marines Corp band to stop playing ‘Hail to the Chief’ whenever he entered a room…and sold the presidential yacht” (Zelizer 57).
Carter also made an effort to hear the voices of his constituents, “[going] down to the White House mess hall for lunch to eat a cheeseburger and iced tea with the staff…and [conducting] town meetings around the country, sometimes staying overnight at the home of regular citizens” (Zelizer 57). While Carter certainly made an effort to change the perception of the presidency, it is clear today that any trust he attempted to re-establish in Washington was not sustainable. His vision for a new age of politics was commendable but not long lasting and Carter lacked a specific vision as to how he would achieve his goal. For those reasons, he only receives mediocre marks in this category.
IV. Competence
Considering the competence of Jimmy Carter is difficult; a sharp difference exists between Candidate Carter, a man that changed the way Americans perceive primaries, and President Carter, a leader that struggled to compromise with leaders in his own party and seemed to have difficulties comprehending how the legislative process worked at times.
After formally announcing his run for the presidency in 1974, “Carter faced a long list of opponents, and an uphill battle to defeat them” (Zelizer 31). Carter and his fellow candidates were forced to work around new campaign donation restrictions, which the Carter campaign did successfully by creating a grassroots effort, “his campaign sold T-shirts, peanuts and souvenirs for small amounts of money, and his staff organized rock concerts” (Zelizer 33). Before Carter’s campaign, not much attention was paid to the Iowa caucuses, “a somewhat bizarre and complicated political tradition whereby Iowans met in homes and schools to determine which candidates should receive their support at the Democratic Convention” (Zelizer 34). While Carter knew that Iowa only controlled 47 of the 3,008 delegates, he understood the potential significance of kicking off the primaries with a win. Carter recognized that “he would make a name for himself, the media would write him up as a serious candidate, and he could go into New Hampshire looking like a winner” (Zelizer 34). Carter’s grassroots strategy took Iowa by storm as he “personally knocked on doors and left handwritten notes for people that were not home” (Zelizer 35).
This momentum carried Carter to a primary win and helped him to squeak out an electoral victory over incumbent Gerald Ford in November. The emphasis Carter placed on grassroots campaigning and the importance of momentum in primaries has resulted in strategies that continue to this day, most notably in Barack Obama’s 2008 primary upset of Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately for Carter, the competence shown during his years of campaigning did not completely carry over to his dealings with the legislative branch during his time in the White House.
One of President Carter’s main struggles in dealing with pushing his agenda through the legislative branch was his lack of competence when it came to dealing with congressmen, whether Republican or Democrat. Politicians complained that “he showed little appreciation for member’s concerns…nor did he make much of an effort to forge personal friendships with many representatives or senators” (Felzenberg 168). Carter clearly understood the importance of making personal connections with voters on the campaign trail and the role a close friendship could play during Camp David negotiations between foreign dignitaries but seemed to forget those vital skills when he stepped into the Oval Office.
President Carter’s inability to work with congressional Democrats was highlighted by a public works bill meant to fight unemployment through public works spending. Many believed that his bill could lead to increased inflation, while others felt that the issue of unemployment must be fought by the Carter administration. Carter pushed for a water-down version of the bill that caused anger for nearly all involved, “the compromise on the public works bill left few satisfied…it also reflected a larger and growing division among Democrats” (Zelizer 83).
While Jimmy Carter’s style of campaigning set precedents that are still being followed by candidates today, his complete inability to deal with the legislative branch that could have been fixed through simple measures shows a lack of understanding of the office of the president. It is for that reason that I must choose to rate President Carter low when it comes to competence as president.
Whether fair or not, a president’s skills relating to economic policy will be judged mostly using the state of the economy during their respective presidency. President Carter is one of many leaders to have had the misfortunate of being in power during a great economic struggle. With that said, Carter had some successful initiatives relating to the economy, many of which included breaking away from the liberal ideals of the Democratic party.
V. Economic Policy
There are many ways that the public judges that state of the economy, and the perception of President Carter’s economic policy was probably hurt by the fact that “in 1978, polls found that inflation had replaced unemployment as the public’s major concern” (Felzenberg 238). As inflation continued to rise and public perception of Carter’s economic policy continued to plummet, the administration attempted to fix the problem. The president “proposed limiting federal pay raises to 5.5 percent as an anti-inflation measure—a step that was both poorly received and totally ineffective…inflation rose to 9.0 percent in 1978” (Felzenberg 239). Carter attempted similar wage inflating measures later in the year only to find inflation continuing through the first half of 1979, resulting in a reshuffling of his cabinet. During a tumultuous economic period that included inflation and energy shortages, Carter was surrounded by a team of economists that provided him with limited options and repeated the same ideas for improvement over and over again. In January 1980 inflation continued to rise, and Carter promised a balanced budget for fiscal year 1981 but the “promise to balance to budget was hollow in that [Carter] did not itemize any cuts” (Felzenberg 240).
Carter was involved in some economic decisions that are still praised to this day. Much credit is given to him for the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act, which “transformed the industry by allowing for competitive fare setting, phasing out the Civil Aeronautics Board, and allowing new companies to enter the marketplace” (Zelizer 84). Carter also helped to push the Staggers Rail Act and the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 through congress, which “were intended to increase competition in the transportation sector” (Felzenberg 240). While these were important moves and have helped future generations in many ways, it is difficult to overshadow other decisions Carter made in regards to the economy.
“Carter’s deregulation policies stand as the only measures he put in place regarding the economy that proved beneficial over time”, which is why I believe he must receive low marks as a president in the economy (Felzenberg 240). He was clearly placed in a bad position in a difficult economy, but his handling of that situation was simply too atrocious to outweigh the positive impact he had on future generations. In my mind he receives low marks for economic policy.
VI. Preserving and Extending Liberty
In 1976, many would have predicted that Jimmy Carter would go down in history as a president that had a great impact on extending liberty throughout the world, “as a candidate, Carter pledged to put human rights at the head of his international policy concerns” (Felzenberg 326). Unfortunately Carter was unable to complete all of his goals in relation to civil liberties during his time in office, though he found some level of success during and after his presidency.
During the tumultuous times of the Cold War, many American leaders stood quietly while their allies took part in human rights atrocities, but Carter “reassessed American practices of overlooking—or not criticizing in public—human rights violations its purported anticommunist allies had committed” (Felzenberg 170). Carter did this through withdrawing “support from Nicaraguan dictator Antastasio Somoza and [imposing] sanctions on several Third World nations to prod them into holding elections” (Felzenberg 326).
Carter held staunch in these ideals until the questionable decision to build up arms in the Middle East following the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. This arms build-up that the president labeled as the “Carter Doctrine” included “a 5 percent annual increase in defense spending and outlined a more aggressive posture in the Persian Gulf that would make the region the center of national security policy” (Zelizer 102). While in the eyes of many, this went against Carter’s previous promises; he was certainly placed in a difficult position by the Soviets.
Carter’s accomplishments as a diplomat after his time in office have already been discussed in this paper, but it certainly emphasizes his long-standing commitment to extending and preserving liberty across the world. While the circumstances around Carter certainly made it difficult to fulfill all of his promises relating to human rights, the success that he did have during a tumultuous period of international relations helps him to earn high marks in my mind.
VIII. National Security and Foreign Policy
When judging the accomplishments and failures of President Carter, one event stands out in the context of national security and foreign policy: the Iran hostage crisis. A year into this crisis, Americans were so fed up with Carter’s handling of the issue that by the week preceding the 1980 election, “according to one poll almost 40 percent of those polled said they would vote for Reagan because he was not Carter, rather than because he was a conservative or a Republican” (Zelizer 124). While the Iran hostage crisis have overshadowed most of Carter’s accomplishments in the field of foreign policy, President Carter showed an impressive track record as a diplomat during the Camp David Accords and continued efforts in the Israel-Palestine conflict and overseeing overseas elections following his time in the White House.
Much credit is due to President Carter for his work bringing Israeli and Egyptian leaders together starting with the September 1978 Camp David Accords. Carter wanted Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to work towards “a comprehensive peace plan that included territorial disputes between the Egyptians and Israelis as well as the conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians over the West Bank” (Zelizer 81). While Carter was unable to convince the men to reach a solid agreement at Camp David, both took part in a historic handshake on the front lawn of the White House months later. Carter used his personal friendship with Sadat and “won Begin’s support by leaving the issue of Jewish settlements and the status of the West Bank outside of the agreement and promising Israel, as well as Egypt, substantial financial and military assistance” (Zelizer 91). While many Arab countries opposed the treaty, and some Jewish Democrats worried about “diminished support for Israel”, the ability of Carter to arrange any sort of agreement between Israel and another country in the Middle East resulted in Israelis flooding the streets “to dance to folk music and sing nationalistic songs” (Zelizer 91). Unfortunately, this exhibit of wise diplomacy was not enough to save Carter’s legacy during the Iran hostage crisis.
Carter’s first mishandling of issues in Iran came during a December 7, 1978 news conference in which he referred to the Shah’s future in Iran as “a decision for the Iranian people to make”, contradicting his staffers that believed “the proper course of action was to support the Shah and encourage him to crack down on the militants” (Zelizer 87). As many in the Carter administration had feared, the government of the Shah fell in January 1979, and by the middle of February the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini controlled the Iranian military and with it, Iran. The Shah was forced to travel from country to country looking for a home as his health deteriorated. Carter had been pressured for months to allow him to enter the country but “had thus resisted such appeals, fearing that taking this action would trigger an enormous backlash against America” (Zelizer 99). Carter folded on October 23 after hearing about the Shah’s health issues, but was unfortunately correct about the repercussions against Americans. Just two weeks later “Iranian students stormed the American embassy in Tehran…they captured fifty soldiers and diplomats. A hostage crisis had begun” (Zelizer 100). Carter began cancelling campaign events to concentrate on handling the crisis, “the president would now be defined by the crisis and his ability to find a resolution” (Zelizer 101). Carter was indeed defined by the crisis, and it became his downfall. Diplomatic angles failed and the downfall of Carter’s skills in the field of national security came to a head on April 11, when he agreed to authorize the use of force. Operation Eagle Claw took place on April 24, 1980, and was a complete disaster. Helicopter malfunctions; a helicopter crashing into a C-130, and the deaths of eight American soldiers resulted in the failure of the mission, tragedy, “a total embarrassment” (Zelizer 107). This mission “came to symbolize the paralysis of U.S. power during Carter’s presidency and the haplessness of its president” (Felzenberg 170).
As mentioned earlier, the hostages were not freed until Carter was officially out of office, meaning the Iran hostage crisis would eternally prevent President Carter from ever receiving positive marks in the categories of foreign policy and national security. While Carter’s achievements as a diplomat in the ordeals of other countries was impressive, it did not override his complete failure in this crisis that involved American citizens and soldiers. While part of this was simply due to unfortunate timing, he still receives extremely low marks in my mind in the fields of foreign policy and national security.
VIII. Conclusion
Jimmy Carter was not the perfect president; one must only look as far as his failures in economics and foreign policy to realize that he fell short of the high expectations set by his energetic campaign. With that said, Carter was a man of strong character that never let go of his belief in the rights of all humans, even decades after he had been voted out of office. He revolutionized modern political campaigns and made great efforts to make the “presidency relate to the people” (Zelizer 2). Carter’s four years in office will likely never be viewed in a positive light, but his efforts as a diplomat and a leader of countless movements for human rights should forever ensure a positive place in the annals of history.
Works Cited
Felzenberg, Alvin S. The Leaders We Deserved (And a Few We Didn't). New York: Basic, 2008.
Print.
Zelizer, Julian E. Jimmy Carter. New York: Times /Henry Holt and, 2010. Print.