Stuart E. Eizenstat on Jimmy Carter

“Public recognition of Carter's legacy of accomplishments has been obscured by inexperience in he critical early stages of the administration; iconoclastic, idiosyncratic decision making; double-digit inflation and interest rates; internal Democratic Party strife; and the Iran hostage crisis. But, like the successes of Truman, Clinton, and the senior Bush, Carter's achievements shine brighter over time, few more than his unique determination to put human rights at the forefront of his foreign policy from the start of his presidency.”

“Notwithstanding Carter's mishandling of the political challenge posed by the activities of his closest friend, Bert Lance, as a small-town banker before he joined the government, Jimmy Carter ran an honest administration. He did not resort to the illegal activities of the Nixon administration, he reined in their CIA excesses, and he did not yield to the temptation of secretly selling arms to Iran to free American hostages in the manner of the Reagan administration's convoluted deal. Like his idol, Harry Truman, whose favorite slogan, "The Buck Stops Here," he kept on his Oval Office desk, Carter left the White House a widely unpopular president. But Truman now is recognized more for his achievements than his faults, and I hope this book will contribute to a similar reassessment of Jimmy Carter's term in the White House. His administration was consequential, and America became a better and more secure country because of it. As his vice president, Walter Mondale, put it, in words now exhibited in the Carter Presidential Library: "We told the truth, we obeyed the law, we kept the peace."”

“If there was a problem, he wanted to tackle it without considering the political consequences or balancing it against other priorities. As he reflected years later: "I have to say I could have put it off to a second term that's what Johnson had done; that's what Nixon had done; that's what Ford had done, and got away with it. But I didn't think it was right to continue with it." Even when Rosalynn advised him to wait until a second term, he replied, "Suppose there is no second term?" It was not that he was ignorant of the politics of decisions like Panama, but his overriding, guiding principle of presidential governance was to do things that needed to be done, in the certain belief that if he did the "right thing," he would ultimately be rewarded by the American people with another term. But as he later admitted, he underestimated the difficulty of applying this principle to the task in Panama. His insistence on immediately tackling the tough challenges, regardless of political costs and competing priorities, was at once his strength and weakness.”

“Carter was a New Democrat unable to articulate a framework that voters could understand at a time when households were being squeezed between higher prices and fewer jobs. The Republicans had become the party of lower taxes and boundless growth. Reagan's optimistic message was of unlimited possibilities, while Carter preached sacrifice and limits. Reagan was the pioneer who struck gold in California, Carter was the public scold from the Bible Belt, preaching the old-time religion of spending cuts and balanced budgets. Forget that when Congress passed a version of Kemp-Roth in 1981, it led to billion-dollar budget deficits in triple digits and that the same happened in 2001 after Congress enacted President George W. Bush's proposals of deep tax cuts on the same theory, blowing through the budget surpluses that we achieved in the Clinton administration by raising taxes on the wealthy, restraining government spending, and helping the economy thrive. But in the 1980 election it was an enormously attractive proposition to an American public reeling from double-digit inflation and slowing growth. While we Democrats were fighting among ourselves about the appropriate level of support for the New Deal and the Great Society programs, the country was changing, and the Republicans were engaging in a whole new and revolutionary conversation that would dominate politics for two generations.”