Jimmy Carter: a moral man but a diffident president
Following the death of the former US president in December, historian Mark White recalls the life and work of a leader whose record in office was decidedly mixed but whose personal integrity remained unsullied
Imagine a US president who was highly intelligent and educated, who had a tremendous capacity for hard work, and who retained a very strong sense of personal morality. Surely those characteristics would ensure a presidency of considerable success? Jimmy Carter’s tenure (1977–81) showed that the answer is: not necessarily. The circumstances in which a leader governs, but cannot control, are important. But there are other leadership attributes – including personality (as opposed to character), communication skills and political nous – that shape a presidency, too.
A son of the South, James Earl Carter, Jr was born in Plains, Georgia, in 1924. His father was a farmer and ran a store; as a boy, Jimmy worked in the family business. Intelligent, earnest and ambitious, he excelled at high school and, during the Second World War, studied at the prestigious US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, where he finished in the top 10 per cent of his class.
Carter, a son of the south, held relatively progressive views on race at a time when the civil rights movement was gathering momentum
On graduating in 1946, he married Rosalynn Smith – who would be his lifelong partner – and joined the US Navy, where he worked on the nuclear submarine programme. It was during this period that Carter served under the strict but inspiring Captain Hyman Rickover, who proved to be one of the greatest influences on his life. When his father died with cancer, Carter was compelled to leave the navy and return to Georgia to take over the family business.
Carter held relatively progressive views on race at a time when the civil rights movement was gathering momentum. In 1958, he was the only man in Plains who refused to join the White Citizens’ Council, which sought to maintain segregation.
Elected to the Georgia State Senate in 1962 as a Democrat, he failed in his bid to become governor of the state in 1966 but succeeded in 1970. During the 1960s, he became a ‘born-again’ Christian, and his faith was an important facet of his political identity.
Jimmy Carter's presidency
In the 1970s, following two presidencies that ended in ignominy – Lyndon Johnson’s with the catastrophe of the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon’s with the Watergate scandal – many Americans became disillusioned with their political leaders.
So, as the 1976 presidential election drew near, there was an appetite for an outsider – a leader of personal integrity – who would clean up US politics. Carter, largely unknown at the start of his campaign, fitted the bill perfectly, and went on to defeat the incumbent (unelected) Republican president, Gerald Ford.
It was Carter who negotiated the treaty returning control of the canal from the US to Panama, which improved his country’s image in Latin America
Carter can be credited with some notable achievements during his presidency, particularly in foreign policy. He negotiated the treaty returning control of the canal from the US to Panama, which improved his country’s image in Latin America.
Through personal diplomacy, he played a key role in facilitating the Camp David Accords, which normalised relations between Israel and Egypt in 1978, leading to an end to three decades of periodic conflict.
Building on Nixon’s work with China, the Carter administration extended formal diplomatic recognition to Beijing, followed by closer economic ties between the two countries. He also signed the SALT-II arms-limitation treaty with the Soviet Union which, though never ratified, was adhered to by both countries.
More than any previous president of the Cold War era, he prioritised human rights in foreign policy. His administration withdrew or reduced aid to countries such as Chile and Nicaragua because of their poor human rights records. He was not always able to apply such pressure consistently – Iran continued to receive US aid despite the Shah’s repressive rule – and his policy aggravated relations with Moscow. Nevertheless, Carter’s personal sense of morality was apparent in his emphasis on human rights.
Yet Carter’s presidency was overtaken by events at home and abroad. An energy crisis saw long lines at gas (petrol) stations across the US, where soaring inflation fuelled an economic crisis. After the pro-American Shah was overthrown in Iran by Islamic fundamentalists, then admitted to the US for medical treatment, in November 1979 militants seized control of the US embassy in Tehran and took hostages. The resultant crisis paralysed the final months of Carter’s presidency as he struggled to secure the release of the hostages, by diplomacy or force.
Woes intensify
When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, it seemed to many Americans that Moscow was now on the front foot in the Cold War. And when Senator Edward Kennedy, youngest brother of former president John F Kennedy, announced his candidacy for the 1980 Democratic presidential nomination, Carter’s woes only intensified.
Kennedy secured a number of major victories in the primaries, but Carter managed to win the Democratic nomination. However, his Republican rival, former actor and California governor Ronald Reagan, proved to be a strong, likeable, telegenic campaigner. Tellingly, in a television debate, he asked Americans whether they were better off than they had been when Carter was elected president – and most knew that was not the case.
Despite his intelligence and conscientiousness, Carter had a sombre, rather pessimistic and uninspiring personality
Carter’s presidency ended in manifest failure. His bid for re-election in 1980 resulted in a humiliating defeat at Reagan’s hands. Carter lost in a landslide, in terms of both the popular and electoral-college vote – a damning verdict delivered by the American people after four years of his presidency.
Despite his intelligence and conscientiousness, Carter had a sombre, rather pessimistic personality that was uninspiring (unlike, say, Franklin Roosevelt, Reagan or Bill Clinton), and his oratorical and communication skills were generally unimpressive.
The most infamous example of this was his ‘malaise’ speech, delivered on 15 July 1979. Intended to reset and re-energise his presidency, it was both ineffectual and, worse, seemed to blame the country’s woes on the character failings of the US people. Carter’s presidency also suffered from his lack of a well-developed ideology. Presidents often need to be ideologically flexible, but strong, clear political convictions can give a sense of national direction.
Carter was more impressive in his post-presidential public life, dedicating himself to humanitarian causes and the promotion of peace and democracy throughout the world. For this, he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. Even so, these achievements after his time in the White House could not sugar-coat memories of a presidential record that had been decidedly mixed.
Mark White is professor of history at Queen Mary University of London. His latest book is Icon, Libertine, Leader: The Life and Presidency of John F. Kennedy (Bloomsbury, 2024)
Save 56% when you subscribe, includes HistoryExtra Membership
