Traditionally Jimmy Carter is acknowledged as a not successful president whose post presidential good works merit admiration. His death and state funeral sparked efforts to elevate his presidential standing.
Admirers cited his courageous support for the Federal Reserve’s war against inflation with high interest rates, which likely doomed his reelection, his deregulation of the airline and energy industries, his mediation of peace between Israel and Egypt, and his normalization of relations with China.
Carter’s presidency like all administrations included successes, failures, and much in between. A presidency includes tens of thousands of decisions by thousands of people amid constantly evolving circumstances over which they have very limited control. Nearly every presidency is informed by some high-minded principles combined with self-serving political pursuits. The high-minded aspirations require the political capital that only grubbier positioning can obtain. Every president must be pragmatic and respond to unexpected events with political skill.
Perhaps the best way to evaluate a presidency is to judge whether the nation is stronger at the end than at the beginning, in its prosperity, national spirits, moral character, and in its global strategic position. By this measure, Carter’s presidency does not evaluate well.
Carter is historically overshadowed by his successor who is commonly deemed a successful president. The new Max Boot biography, Ronald Reagan: His Life and Legend, does not deconstruct Reagan’s accomplishments but offers a more critical perspective. Reagan as president was detached from policy specifics and from the actions of his staff, which facilitated endless infighting and needless scandals like the Iran-Contra affair. Boot thinks Reagan was very lucky. The economy did not during his years grow any faster than under Nixon or Carter, and less than under Clinton, but following an early recession the subsequent prosperity seemed exceptional. The Soviet Union was already wobbling, and Mikhail Gorbachev strove unsuccessfully to reform it. Its subsequent collapse only seemed like a reaction to Reagan’s anti-Soviet policies. Reagan’s foreign policy projected an optic of strength. But the Lebanon intervention was disastrous, the invasion of Grenada included numerous and lethal mishaps, and the sparing with Libya’s Muammar Kaddafi only resulted in more terror like the Lockerbie calamity.
Boot’s critique has some basis. But it mostly overlooks the wider picture. The U.S. in 1980 after the Vietnam War, two recessions, high inflation, two oil crises with infamous gas lines, and numerous strategic defeats around the world, was dispirited. The Soviet Union, whatever its internal weaknesses, seemed ascendant, occupying Afghanistan, and gaining new proxies in southeast Asia, Africa, and Central America. Japan and West Germany seemed to be displacing the U.S. economically. The Iran hostage crisis was a prolonged humiliation.
Carter was a former onetime governor and businessman, an engineer by training, and an earnest Sunday school teacher. He mastered the details of policy and worked endlessly. He did not project a vision of national majesty. Instead, he often seemed to summon the nation to resignation with its reduced global stature, which to his mind perhaps evinced humility.
Great nations do not benefit from sermonizers as their chief magistrates, who instead should exemplify confidence, strength, and optimism. Carter inherited a country that was prosperous, with unemployment and inflation both having fallen. The nation had somewhat recovered from the fall of Southeast Asia and its global stature was slightly improved. The Bicentennial celebration of 1976 had bolstered patriotism and national spirit. Carter the moralizer was not comfortable with American strength. He wanted national modesty, which others often interpreted as weakness, resignation, and retreat. Initially, President Carter abjured limousines, discarded “Hail to the Chief,” carried his own bags, and wore sweaters. He ceremonially shrunk the presidency and by so doing unintentionally shrunk the national purpose and identity.
Reagan, in contrast, the former Hollywood performer, appreciated the importance of presidential pageantry, which include imposing motorcades, ruffles and flourishes, military salutes, grand ceremonies, and soaring, aspirational rhetoric summon the nation to greatness and goodness. While Carter glowered, and studied, and worked ever harder into the night, visibly aging and worried, Reagan beamed, waved, joked, and joyfully vacationed. Where Carter saw clouds, Reagan saw blue skies and white clouds.
Carter understood policy better, but Reagan understood statecraft better. No leader can master all the details involving a nation of hundreds of millions. At best, the president of a great republic can articulate a vision and mobilize support for it. Carter spent decades redeeming his post presidential reputation. Reagan left office largely not caring. His serenity led him to prefer clearing brush on his ranch. When his successor President Bush phoned to share updates, Reagan merely listened politely, like a comfortable retiree.
On Reagan’s last day in the Oval Office his National Security Advisor Colin Powell famously reported to him that the world was quiet. It was very different from Reagan’s first day in office, and it’s the most for which any departing president could hope.
Nearly every president has cared about our nation and strove to serve it decently. Certainly, Carter did. And his accomplishment in and out of office merit appreciation. But America was in many ways weaker after his presidency than before. America was in many ways stronger after Reagan’s presidency than before. Carter may have been smarter and may have worked harder. But Reagan, like any shrewd leader, intuited what the nation needed and pursued it with agility. He understood what Carter did not: the presidency is a performance.
Carter and Reagan were both providential instruments, their destinies linked to each other and to the nation. Both were patriots who shared high ideals, decency and commitments to public righteousness, but from different perspectives. They were not friends while on this earth, nor did they even understand each other. But we can hope, as both tried to serve the Almighty according to the best of their understanding, they are on better terms now from their new vantage point.