Ink Tea Stone Leaf

This new year will be the first in a full century without a living Jimmy Carter in it. Of course, the first several years of his existence were not especially consequential to world history. He had to first be brought up, educated, and established into life before his actions could begin to matter more than the average person’s. Five decades passed before he achieved the peak of his worldly influence, the thing that most identifies him as a “historical” person, his election as the 39th President of the United States. Having lost that title sooner than he would have liked, he spent his remaining years striving to remain consequential, and particularly focused on making sure that the consequences of his actions were good for humanity. We can only hope that the best of his actions continue to be consequential long after the end of his natural life.

Carter was defeated for reelection before I was born, so it would be silly for me to reflect on what his administration meant for me; all of my knowledge is necessarily second hand. The dominant picture of Jimmy Carter that I received from the culture was of a leader who was mediocre-at-best, and was essentially fortunate to have been removed from power when he was, all the sooner to earn the title that he was truly meant for: the “best ex-President of all time.” It’s a characteristically American interpretation of the circumstances: Carter’s actual performance in office is overshadowed by the fact that a majority would not endorse his continuation there, while his undeniable successes and essential decency in later years entitle him to a compliment just shy of back-handed. Nevertheless, if there was only one politician in this last century who deserved my vote on his own merits, I have to conclude that it was very likely him.

All Presidents are bastards, of course. They usually become bastards before they seek the office, and they are almost always there by the time they announce their candidacy. By election day, the process is inevitably complete: whatever decent and noble qualities they may possess (and I don’t mean to be unfair, as many have rightfully been praised for these qualities in their private and public lives) must coexist with the hubris and ruthlessness required of a quasi-emperor, and the eagerness to accept personal responsibility for the present and historical crimes of a government that has many to answer for. Criticisms of our various Presidents are often reducible to criticisms of the Presidency itself, or of the whole governmental structure they administer. When we evaluate them individually, we look to their short-term political successes and failures first, if we get around to the wisdom and goodness of their visions at all.

So our history has taken the man most extolled for his personal decency and good works, the strongest commitment to peace as a matter of policy, the clearest perception of how the energy crisis of his time and the mounting threats to our global and national environment were inextricably linked, and the courage to tell his people that a fundamental change in their attitudes toward “self-indulgence and consumption” was a necessary part of the solution, and told us he was a worse-than-average leader. What are we to make of that? What, in an era of catastrophic climate change and authoritarianism, are we supposed to learn about the virtues of leadership from that kind of assessment?

It is an axiom that an effective leader shows people where they must go, but does not try to lead them where they cannot possibly follow. However, if it was not possible for the people of the United States to follow Jimmy Carter to a rejuvenation of civic responsibility; if they simply could not help but vote for a clown who promised to lower taxes on the rich and swore that nobody would ever have to change a thing about their “consumption habits;” if they simply had to elect, reelect, and name an airport after a man whose campaign conspired to prevent Carter’s administration from securing the release of hostages until after he could be elected to take credit for it; if all these things are true, then I can’t see how it was Carter’s fault.

I don’t want to get carried away: Carter’s approach wasn’t perfect, and the late 1970s were not a golden age for the United States; there never has been such a thing, no matter what anybody tells you. But the legacy of Ronald Reagan is budget deficits and the ballooning of the national debt, a sense among the corporate class of impunity and entitlement, record income inequality and declining quality of public services, racial chauvinism and homophobia, and a confirmed contempt for scientific and historical truth in place of self-aggrandizing mythology. Carter stood against all of those things, and for that I say he was the leader the United States needed, even if the electorate was too short-sighted to see it, even as it still buys into the whole “best ex-President ever” sop. Jimmy Carter was a great ex-President, working for peace and speaking out for justice on the world stage while building homes for people who needed them with his own hands. People like that should be directing national policy, even if they have the poor luck to govern amidst global crises that cannot be neatly resolved within four years

In a famous address to the nation, Carter said “we must face the truth, and then we can change our course. We simply must have faith in each other, faith in our ability to govern ourselves, and faith in the future of this nation. Restoring that faith and that confidence to America is now the most important task we face.” The media put the word “malaise” on this speech, because Carter talked about real problems and they all thought that that was a real downer. History calls it the “malaise speech,” because while Carter didn’t use the term himself, he had the nerve to tell the American people that they could be doing more to support their own communities and institutions. He told us that giving up on those things because they were beginning to show signs of wear and tear was not a viable option. He put a premium on honesty, and he paid for it.

Nearly a half century later, who can say that Carter was wrong? We are in the mess we’re in because we haven’t faced the truth; we can’t even agree on what the truth is, not because it is particularly difficult to discern but because it is politically incorrect for the devoted followers of Donald Trump to do so. We don’t have faith in each other, and we don’t have faith in our ability to govern ourselves, because for decades we have given one another very little reason to sustain such a faith. But if we are to restore some balance to this madness and address the very real problems that we face as a country and as members of a global community, we must have faith in these things. We can’t wait for a so-called strongman to take that responsibility out of our hands and solve everything for us, because such people have no interest in solving our problems and they won’t hand the power back willingly: we saw enough proof of that on January 6th, 2021.

We should not hold our breath waiting for a savior, but we should take note of an example. If we believe in nothing else, we must believe in democracy and civic virtue. If we are to elevate anybody to positions of power, we must elevate people who believe they must use that power for the benefit of every one. We can’t be perfect, but we can be so much better than this.