|
The problem with the American people is not one of ignorance, Mark Twain once said, but is rather one of folks knowing so darned much that just ain't so. This dynamic of faulty facts certainly can be applied to the world of politics today. It's found in the often intentional lies of politicians at all levels, it saturates the corporate media productions, and is too often found in the strongly held positions of average citizens across the country. At times, one can even find examples of this very thing on the liberal internet forums – it leaves one shaking their head, wondering if the insertion of a lie was done purposefully, or by an innocent victim spreading the germ unintentionally.
The antidote, of course, is taking the time to investigate whatever issue one has an interest in. A knowledge of history, for example, helps us to develop an immune system capable of fighting off the diseased misinformation and disinformation that political operatives and the media spread daily. I believe that this is particularly true in the context of controversial public figures.
In the past few days, I've been delighted to read some interesting posts/threads regarding former President Jimmy Carter. Like many forum members, I'm eagerly looking forward to reading his next book, made from diaries he kept while serving in the Oval Office. Carter has always been a complex figure, frequently misunderstood in large part due to what people mistakenly believe that they know about him. Many of his post-president activities have been controversial, including a couple of the books that he has published.
In my opinion, Jimmy Carter's books are absolutely the most interesting and important authored by any former president. I like to contrast them to Richard Nixon's series of books: Nixon was attempting to redeem himself after the disgraces of Watergate, while Carter seems focused on challenging people to think – regardless of their opinion of him. I admire anyone who is willing to insert some bold truths into the mix, and then stir the pot.
Carter's life allows us to divide it into three distinct sections: the pre-presidency; his presidency; and post-president. Among democrats, there is a considerable range of opinions on Carter's performance as the 39th President of the United States. He had both advantages and disadvantages in serving in the post-Watergate era. He was not able to unify the party for a number of reasons that included both the serious divides that were independent of him, as well as the man himself, and the campaign he ran in 1976. Although I voted for him twice, I did not view him as a strong president; he is, however, by far the ex-president that I admire and respect the most.
To understand who Jimmy Carter is, and appreciate what he is doing, it is important to know where he came from. While most democrats have some knowledge of the early life of a John Kennedy or Brack Obama, Carter's remains relatively unknown. Even in the 1976 election, he was considered to be the candidate who “came from nowhere” before stepping onto the national stage.
Seeing President Carter on television and reading the threads on this forum led me to dig through some of my older books, to find “How Jimmy Won,” by Kandy Stroud (Morrow; 1977). Stroud was the Washington correspondent for “Women's Wear Daily,” who older forum members will remember for her as the journalist who authored the infamous article on Edmund and Jane Muskie that republicans twisted in order to sink his 1972 campaign. (I also got out “Daddy King,” Martin Luther King, Sr.'s 1980 autobiography, which provides interesting information on the '76 campaign.)
Last week, I posted an essay here that dealt with “family systems.” Jimmy Carter was unquestionably raised in a racist family; Stroud's book includes details of the still overt racist beliefs of the extended family, when Carter became a candidate for the democratic nomination. I wrote about the roles that children take on in dysfunctional families – the hero, the lost child, the scapegoat, and the mascot – which one can easily identify when considering Jimmy and his siblings Ruth, Gloria, and Billy.
Carter's history in the navy, under Hyman Rickover, and as a peanut farmer are fairly well known. His early political career is less familiar. When he decided to enter the world of politics, Carter began at the school and local library board level. He moved up in state politics selectively, charting a careful course. He did suffer a couple of loses, but appeared to learn from them. What's interesting to recognize is that while he was considered “liberal” in local and state politics, Carter was rather conservative in the context of national affairs. In his 1970 run for governor, he praised racists George Wallace and Lester Maddox. He did not oppose the US involvement in Vietnam until it was too late to be meaningful. He created an “American Fighting Men's Day,” which was in support of William Calley. He spoke out in support of segregated, private schools.
At the same time, he was opposed to his church's restricting membership, in an effort to keep black people and liberal whites from joining. This and other related activities created a split within both his extended family, and their local community. When Carter was considering an attempt to be included on the 1972 ticket as the candidate for vice president, one of his strongest backers was Morris Dees. And while his eventual effort to be on that ticket failed, it opened the door for Carter to build the national foundation for his 1976 run.
One of the most important things for Carter was building linkages to the black community. His two biggest connections were with Martin Luther King, Sr., and Andrew Young. The elder King told Carter that although he was democrat, his first choice for the office would his republican friend Nelson Rockefeller. When Rockefeller told King that he did not plan to run, he endorsed Carter. Both he and Young would campaign across the country for Carter in both the primary and general elections.
Jimmy Carter avoided entering close relationships with the Kennedy wing of the democratic party. The candidate and his campaign staff viewed that group as representing the party's past. Carter's selection process for choosing his vice president was one of the most interesting parts of the campaign. He favored a couple of the more conservative democrats, with Henry “Scoop” Jackson being his favorite. Eventually, to gain the support of the Humphrey wing, he selected Walter Mondale.
It is important to read the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s journals, in order to better understand the deep divide between Carter and the Kennedy democrats. That tension, in my opinion, did the most serious damage to the Carter presidency. It led to Ted Kennedy's decision to enter the 1980 primaries. While the underhanded tactics of the Reagan/Bush “campaign” (re: hostages) and John Anderson hurt Carter, he would almost certainly have been re-elected but for the divide with the Kennedy wing.
In the years since the 1980 lose, I think that Jimmy Carter has become a great Elder Statesman. Knowing where he actually came from only serves to increase my respect for him.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
