After the Florida Baptists showed their stupidity, how nice to turn on the television this morning and see former President Jimmy Carter talking about values. It is in vogue among Republicans to mock Carter, and unfortunately also among religious conservatives. The man who did his best to govern with a strong and deep sense of moral and religious values is now not respected by religious conservatives. You tell me, would you rather received the counsel of the likes of James Dobson and Jerry Falwell or Jimmy Carter?
Often called the best "ex-President" in American history (perhaps JQ Adams might challenge) Carter has lived his faith. He has tried to bring peace to war, and solutions to gridlock. He has been concerned with the environment, the poor, the needy--in other words, all the issues that religious conservatives have ignored in their grasp for power.
Call me what you will, but I will stand with the likes of Jimmy Carter and be proud.
6 comments:
He had some good moments as President, and I admire his convictions, but he was far from our best President. However, I agree with the "best ex-prez" thing. He has done more for humanity than any ex-president I can think of, and he certainly says more for the Christian faith than any of the bozos in power now or in the last few administrations. His moral and religious values may not have guided him to presidential greatness, but he certainly has achieved the greatness that we as compassionate humans can only dream of.
I voted for Carter twice and am proud to admit it. But history proves the most pius and devout make terrible leaders. There's not enough realpolitik in them.
Last year I read _The Unfinished Presidency_. Excellent book about a fine former prez. I still can't wrap my head around these conservative Christians who think Carter is anti-Christ.
kgp
I think it has become fashionable to say that Jimmy Carter was not a good president, though most people don't really know why they are saying that. It reminds me of how popular it was to say that Dan Quayle is stupid, though he is certainly not.
That aside, I adore Jimmy Carter, and am proud to have had him as our president. We could use a man like him today.
Carter, like J.Q. Adams was probably among the smartest presidents we've ever had using IQ as a measure.
He is a good man, with the country's best interest first and foremost, but he wasn't the most effective leader in my opinion.
The divisive interests supporting the GOP do love to dis him which mean they feel threatened by him in some way.
When Carter was elected president I was hitting puberty and getting through High School so politics and my memories of Carter are limited. I remember the grin. Billy. Billy Beer. At first he was Baptist so in our household that meant he was good. Later, the Baptist thing came up less and less. My buds and I thought it was cool that he did a Playboy interview, but the political appeal of the magazine as justification for purchase didn't fly with the authorities in our lives.
Since I've gotten older (I hesitate to say "grown up") I've tried to read a little on the times. It seems pretty standard to refer to Carter as an average or poor "leader" during his presidency. In looking back over the timeline of his four years, I have to say it's a period of time during which I wonder if anyone would have come out looking very good. Carter followed Ford, was still cleaning up details left from Vietnam, faced a newly empowered OPEC, the Iranian Revolution, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Inflation and unemployment worsened during his tenure. He was supportive of the Shah, a character who would probably not be praised by the post-president Carter. Sadat-Begin and Salt II also took place. Carter stopped the B-1 development and postponed the neutron bomb which were not popular with conservatives but, I think, were great moves. Again, I wasn't interested in being led during his tenure in office, but to me there are a number of his actions that reveal priciples that I admire but were not politically wise. Perhaps the leadership gap was in bringing others along. Reagan came in and was willing to further the militarization of the US at any cost. This was and is popular, but was it good leadership? Personally I'd prefer him to the Bunkerbuster we have now.
If any of the readers were following politics at the time or if Streak, as historian, could give some insight into which aspects of the Carter presidency lead to the poor score on "leadership" I'd be interested to know. Was it with Congress? Internationally? The Soviets? Was he just not willing to kill? I'm not being sarcastic- I'm really interested in this.
It's good, also, to keep in mind that Carter's presidency was 25 years ago. For me, it's nice to see a politician move into the role of statesman and peacemonger. It's encouraging for me to see that what some would consider the top job in the world wasn't Carter's ticket to a quiet, inactive life thereafter.
I'm not a Carter worshipper. I don't like his cozy relationship with Monsanto and his promotion of GMO's and terminator gene technology. I wish he'd stop calling trying to change my mind :-).
Sorry for the length, Streak. Got started and things just kept rolling.
BB
Post a Comment