S3 E30: Nice Guy, Bad President - Jimmy Carter's Unfortunate Legacy

Jimmy Carter is remembered as a nice guy, but a weak man.  A one-term president who never showed strength, he’s one more example of the fad politics of the Democrat party.  Always choosing symbols over ability.  We can only hope the many houses he helped to build had a better plan and a better foundation than did his presidency.

Jimmy Carter was the first in a modern line of southern presidents. Like Bill Clinton he came out of nowhere, the unknown governor of a southern state. Like George Bush he was a former naval officer and businessman. But unlike either one he served a single term leaving failure failure behind to spend the rest of his life successfully polishing his image. He even received a Nobel Peace Prize but much like the award given to Barack Obama no one can tell you how he got it without looking it up first.

Commentary on trending issues brought to you with a moderate perspective.

Transcript

The Tenth Man: 0:11

Jimmy Carter is dead, and the media proclaim his achievements as husband, Bible teacher, and home builder. The failed presidency of a nice guy, today, on the 10th man. Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer. The Sunday school teacher. The humanitarian. A man so admired for his kindness and humility that he became the prototype for the modern nice guy president. But is nice enough for the Oval Office? And how much of Carter's legacy is the man himself? And how much is just clever image polishing? Let's start with this. I don't want to speak ill of the dead. By all accounts, Jimmy Carter was a good man, humble, compassionate, and sincere. I'll enjoy meeting him in heaven someday. But it's important to confront the contradictions of his presidency. Not to tear him down, but because these contradictions reveal larger truths about leadership, about history, and about the Democratic Party itself. You see, the Democratic Party has long been the party of inconsistency. And Carter? He's no exception. There's Carter the peanut farmer. We often hear Carter described as a humble peanut farmer. But the truth is different. Carter wasn't farming peanuts, he was brokering them. His family owned a peanut warehousing company in the Jim Crow South. Buying peanuts from poor black sharecroppers and selling them at a profit. Carter's role was passive, not transformational. He didn't cultivate the land himself or disrupt the existing system. He operated within it. His work reflected the norms of the era, and while he may have treated his people kindly, his actions didn't push for progress or for systemic change. Think about what we've seen before. Statues being torn down. Historical figures are cancelled. Because, through the modern lens, we judge them too harshly. Yet, Carter, whose world was shaped by the Jim Crow South, gets a pass. This isn't about attacking him personally. It's about pointing out the double standard. One of Carter's most endearing qualities was his lifelong commitment to teaching Sunday School. Even while president, it's a rare and admirable trait, a leader who genuinely lives his faith. But let's consider the contradiction. While Carter lived his Christian values, his party increasingly attacked Christianity and the moral stances that come with it, while Carter stood by. Christianity often demands taking unpopular stands on issues like abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, poverty. But consider the 2024 Democratic National Convention where Planned Parenthood prominently showcased an abortion rights booth and gave free abortions. That's going beyond personal choice. It's a celebration of what many Christians see as a grievous moral wrong. And let's not forget the party's insistence on enforcing taxpayer funding for abortion. It's a stark contrast to Carter's personal faith and values. And while the Democratic Party champions personal choice, it rarely preaches personal responsibility while both are Christian values. Carter's actions in this realm, too, were passive. He neither challenged his party's contradictions nor sought to bridge the divide between faith and policy. His Sunday School teaching Admirable as it was, remained a personal ritual disconnected from his public witness. Then there's Carter, the president, where the media loves to portray him as a victim of bad luck, an economic crisis, the Iran hostage debacle, and other things. But let's be honest, much of this happened on his watch because of his inaction or ineffective responses. Instead of solving problems, Carter focused on gestures. He walked to his inauguration to show humility. He wore cardigan sweaters to promote energy conservation. But these symbols didn't address any underlying issues. Gas lines grew longer. Double digit inflation crippled the economy. And Americans turned down their thermostats while Carter sent heating oil to Iran, the same country which was holding 52 U. S. citizens as hostage. One of Carter's most controversial decisions was giving away the Panama Canal, a vital U. S. asset built with American ingenuity and sacrifice, was handed over, weakening America's strategic position in the region. This was not an act of bold diplomacy, it was a concession. Even one of his most celebrated achievements, the Camp David Accords, showcased Carter's tendency to facilitate rather than to lead. It was Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat who did the heavy lifting and they paid the price. Begin resigned under pressure a few years later. and Sadat was assassinated. Carter's Nobel Prize awarded years later, it's important to remember it had nothing to do with Camp David, but instead reflected his post presidential work. And then there was the Iran Hostage Crisis. Carter's passive leadership faltered, culminating in a botched rescue attempt. He micromanaged the mission, reportedly insisting that no Iranian guards be harmed. The result, a disastrous failure. In stark contrast, H. Ross Perot successfully rescued two employees from Iran with a private mission. Meanwhile, Iran finally released the U. S. hostages the moment Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, signaling their respect for decisive leadership Similar to what we are seeing today in the aftermath of the election of Donald Trump, Carter's naval career also raises questions. He served as a nuclear submarine officer. A role requiring intelligence and precision. He was a trained nuclear engineer. And yet, during the energy crisis, when America needed solutions, Carter never strongly championed nuclear power, even though it could have addressed both energy needs, as well as the climate change concerns that are in the forefront today. His presidency also saw the Three Mile Island nuclear crisis. Rather than using it as an opportunity to promote safer nuclear energy, He let fear dominate the public discourse, further stalling a technology critical to reducing fossil fuel dependence. Compare Carter to George H. W. Bush, another Navy man, born in the same year of 1924. Bush was in high school when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and enlisted as a naval aviator upon his graduation. Carter was out of high school, so He enrolled in college. Bush was shot down in combat during World War II. Carter, meanwhile was transferred to another college, then the Naval Academy, getting commissioned four years after Bush in 1946. Then when his father died, Carter left the Navy to run the family business, even though he had siblings who could have taken over. He supposedly dreamed of serving his country in the U. S. Navy, but seemingly forsook every chance he had to do so. One of Carter's first acts as president was to pardon Vietnam draft dodgers. Men who burned their draft cards, fled the country, and broke the law. This was a move toward reconciliation, but it also opened the door to a double standard. Later, Republicans like George W. Bush, and especially Donald Trump, were harshly criticized for their limited, or lack of, military service. Even though neither of them broke the law. In fact, their decisions mirrored those of prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden who also didn't serve but legally followed the system at the time. The irony here is stark. Carter himself could be seen as avoiding combat when he didn't enlist or when he left the Navy to run his family business, despite having siblings who could have stepped in. And yet, when his party attacked men like Bush and Trump Who needed no pardoning, Carter said nothing./His silence on this matter leaves a troubling inconsistency in his legacy, one that contrasts sharply with his image as a reconciler and unifier. Jimmy Carter was considered a good man, but the contradictions of his life and presidency reveal the limits of being nice. He lived humbly, but his policies left America weaker. He proclaimed/faith, but rarely challenged his party's drift from those values. And while he spent decades polishing his image, history demands a deeper look. Being good matters, but being good at the job matters more. And in Jimmy Carter's case, the latter left much to be desired. Thank you for listening.