President Jimmy Carter passed away on Sunday. He ran for a second term during the first Presidential Election in which I could vote, but I did not vote for him. I had canvassed for Ted Kennedy, against the President, while I was still a high school student in New Hampshire. My main (but not only) objection to his policies involved his stance on China and Taiwan. In any case, I voted in Rhode Island, where I went to college in the fall, but I think my vote was counted in West Virginia, where my parents lived. Either way, Carter won both Rhode Island and West Virginia, so my 'protest vote' had negligible effect. So much for my first election.
While teaching in Oakland in the aughts, we took our students on community service field trips in the local area – I believe it was around MLK Day. My group went to a Habitat for Humanity site in Oakland (East Oakland?), an organization championed by the President. It was an exciting and inspiring project, and I returned to the site on my own for a few days as well.
So much of the conversation I'm hearing around Carter's legacy falls under the trope: awful President, but great former President. I'm not sure I'd say 'awful'; I didn't support him, but I didn't want Reagan to win – not a fan of his work either. I would have voted Democrat if I thought it mattered. Like every President, there was some good and there was some not so good.
I always thought of him as sincere, generous as a humanitarian, and principled to a fault – which may be the fault of losing the election. But, he accepted blame for his errors; something that's just not done – then or now.
As you know, there is a growing disrespect for government and for churches and for schools, the news media, and other institutions. This is not a message of happiness or reassurance, but it is the truth and it is a warning.[ … ]I got a lot of personal advice. Let me quote a few of the typical comments that I wrote down. This from a southern governor: "Mr. President, you are not leading this nation -- you're just managing the government.""You don't see the people enough any more.""Some of your Cabinet members don't seem loyal. There is not enough discipline among your disciples.""Don't talk to us about politics or the mechanics of government, but about an understanding of our common good."(Pres Jimmy Carter, "Crisis of Confidence" [aka The Malaise Speech], July 15, 1979)
In the darker recesses and in the shadow of our most recent election, I've been mulling the contradiction that we say we want virtuous leaders, but virtuous candidates inevitably lose elections. We want them to be transparent and honest. President Carter was punished for that.
He did manage to win a term, in large part because his opponent, or his opponent's party, carried blame for Vietnam and Watergate. We should thank President Carter for helping the country recover from those national lows. However, given the massively 'un-virtuous' context, we cannot say this shines a positive light on the American voter – having elected someone like Nixon in the first place.
The nation's decency is reflected in their choice, no matter their stated intention. I'm reminded that this contradiction came from an interview I saw with Stephen Colbert:
Colbert: Were you too nice to be President because people criticized you for your demeanor and you might say the energy that was brought to the job. Does America want kind of a jerk as President?Carter: Apparently from the recent election, yes. I never knew it before.Colbert: What do you think it takes to be president? What's the one quality that it requires to be the president?Carter: I used to think it was to tell the truth. But I've changed my mind lately.
No comments:
Post a Comment