Former President Jimmy Carter, a thorn in the side and a pain in a certain southerly part of the anatomy for many Presidents since he left office, has opened up both verbal barrels in a broadside against the foreign policy of President George Bush and the political choices of British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
And a biographer says the force of Carter’s denunciations is not business as usual for the former President:
Former President Carter says President Bush’s administration is “the worst in history” in international relations, taking aim at the White House’s policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.
The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush’s environmental policies and the administration’s “quite disturbing” faith-based initiative funding.
“I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history,” Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper’s Saturday editions. “The overt reversal of America’s basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me.”
Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo confirmed his comments to The Associated Press on Saturday and declined to elaborate. He spoke while promoting his new audiobook series, “Sunday Mornings in Plains,” a collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains, Ga.
Actually, though, Carter’s comments are most notable for their stridency and the fact they come from a former President — not their content: there have been many over the past few years (of both parties) who have indicated that the Bush administration’s policy of pre-emptive military action and “enhanced interrogation techniques” (which is a phrase sort of like “pre-owned cars”) have not been in sync with the foreign policy and values of previous American administration. Administration defenders insist it’s a whole new world after 911. Critics say that still does not make the policy changes advisable, productive, desireable or wise.
The Republican National Committe was certainly not pleased by Carter’s remarks:
“Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man,” said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman. She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also “challenged Ronald Reagan’s strategy for the Cold War.”
Carter was especially tough on the Iraq war:
“We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered,” he said. “But that’s been a radical departure from all previous administration policies.”
Carter, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, criticized Bush for having “zero peace talks” in Israel. Carter also said the administration “abandoned or directly refuted” every negotiated nuclear arms agreement, as well as environmental efforts by other presidents.
Meanwhile, Carter didn’t stop there. He also lambasted the administration’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which helped religious charities get $2.15 billion in federal grants in fiscal year 2005:
“The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions, even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion,” Carter said. “As a traditional Baptist, I’ve always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one.”
The AP piece quotes David Brinkley, a Tulane University presidential historian and Carter biographer, as calling Carter’s comments unprecedented: “When you call somebody the worst president, that’s volatile. Those are fighting words.” To be sure: former Presidents usually have a tradition of (a) not criticizing other Presidents or, if they do, (b) criticizing other Presidents with a bit of diplomacy.
And Blair? He didn’t fare much better, in Carter’s eyes. Carter called his support of Bush
“Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient…..And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world,” Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.”
In a sense, the AP piece comes as no surprise: Carter has frustrated every President since he left office, including former President Bill Clinton. He remains among the most controversial Democratic Presidents. To his supporters, Carter was misunderstood and never really got a chance to fully perform on the world stage because he only served one term. To his critics (including some in the Democratic party) he masterfully created an image and got elected due to it but once in office was incapable of running a smooth administration and was way out of his depth.
ONE PERSNONAL NOTE: I was overseas in Spain in 1976 writing for the Chicago Daily News and the Christian Science Monitor when Jimmy Carter was elected President. I watched the Carter-Gerald Ford debate via video tape with some friends from Madrid University at an open house at the American Embassy in Madrid.
Once in office, however, it became clear as I talked to American diplomats that many of them were concerned over what they told me was the incompetency of the Carter administration and flaws in its foreign policy. (These diplomats also did not have a high opinion of Senator Ted Kennedy who visited Madrid). When I asked them what they thought of the new administration in my off-the-record or not-for-attribution sessions, some of them would simply grimace and shake their heads.
And now? Up until the Bush administration, Carter’s name has become in the political conventional wisdom akin to failure and incompetence. That may soon be revised in light of the Bush administration’s crisis-of-the-day record and Bush’s own performance, which has started to raise eyebrows among some Republicans so high that that their eyebrows are now three inches above their heads.
What is unusual is Carter’s blunt language. As Carter notes, past administration (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton) all seemed to share roughly the same basic values in American foreign policy, even if they differed on actual details. The Bush administration veered the U.S. in a different direction. You can also see the same pattern of taking the U.S. on a non-traditional course in the Bush administration’s attitude towards civil liberties, the role of Congress and checks and balances, and a host of other matters. It has not been your granddaddy’s, your daddy’s — or even George W. Bush’s daddy’s — Republican administration.
But most of that will get lost because say the name “Jimmy Carter” and some people already think they know where he’s coming from. A flawed President? Yes. An ineffectual administration? Yes. A foreign policy that helped open the doors to some problems the U.S. faces today? Most assuredly, yes. But at least some of what Carter says about U.S. foreign policy and now the Bush administration policy is different has been already stated by others — including some with an R in front of their party registration and highly-raised eyebrows…
UPDATE: For further perspective on how some consider the Bush administration policy as a failure, read Decline and Fall of the Neocons in Sunday TimesOnline. This is similar to Carter’s view.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.