RSS Feed MenuCall it a hunch, but I bet that George W. Bush doesn’t like my old boss, Jimmy Carter, very much. That doesn’t mean, however, that Bush can’t learn something important from Carter.
Defeated for reelection in 1980, Jimmy Carter left office with an approval rating of only 34%. Yet a CNN-Opinion Research poll released just two weeks ago showed that 64% of Americans now approve of the way Carter performed as President! A possible explanation of this turnaround can be found in how Jimmy Carter has managed his post-presidency.
After leaving office, Carter returned to Plains, Georgia to reflect on his time in the Oval Office, to write his memoirs, and to contemplate his future. In the process of thinking about the “what next?” question, I believe Carter came to understand that how he performed as an ex-President would shape the way history viewed his Presidency.
By employing his legendary intelligence, drive and discipline—-qualities that helped propel him into office in the first place—Carter set about to use his status as a former American President to continue to make a positive difference in the world. His efforts to address poverty, disease and hunger in undeveloped countries have been relentless. His attempts to promote democratic values, free elections, peace and reconciliation have taken him to the most remote and dangerous places on earth. Along the way, Jimmy Carter has also found the time to write and speak in a manner— and to an extent (he is the author of over 20 books!)—that helped describe and explain his Presidency, the principles upon which it was built, and his world view.
In the past several weeks, the departing President Bush and his team of operatives, led by “the architect” Karl Rove, have undertaken an elaborate “legacy project” that they hope will repair Bush’s shattered reputation with the American public. It is impossible to know, today, whether or not this latest campaign will help shape future evaluations, but as a short term strategy it has been a complete bust: a CBS/New York Times poll released on January 16 showed Bush’s approval rating stands at an historic low of 22%! The public is saying, in effect, “Don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out!”
Going forward, although perhaps temporarily uncomfortable, George Bush should ignore Karl Rove’s advice and instead heed Jimmy Carter’s example. In that regard, he might think about focusing his ex-Presidency on three things that many Americans—including some of us who have been critics and opponents—admire about Bush and his time in office:
• Reforming and improving American public education,
• Spreading democracy to people around the world;
• Combating AIDS in Africa.
As in the Carter model, Bush’s future endeavors will have to be sincere, genuine and consistent with his history as President; these things cannot be faked. It means sticking to a game plan even when no one is paying attention. It involves a huge amount of drudge work—raising money, hiring a staff, building an institution. It requires boldness and controversy. It demands energy, discipline, and determination.
It is entirely possible—although it won’t be easy—for George Bush to redeem himself, and to gain a measure of positive historical reviews, by having an active, strategic, successful and rewarding retirement. Bush might be able to accomplish in his post-presidency, through example and exhortation, some of what he tried to do while in office. At a minimum, like chicken soup, it can’t hurt.
gblittle // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:15 am
The hate and disrespect directed toward Bush during his Presidency will have more of an impact for the rest of my generation than anything positive he will do during the rest of his post Presidential years. This I am sorry to say.
As someone in my mid-50s I remember the Carter years too well. Filling up with gas every other day, the economy and of course high interest rates (+20 percent). Running a small business in those days was not fun either. Our current economic condition is compared to the Great Depression (which we are not even close to) rather than the Carter years.
Im sure Carter is a nice man but he was a bad President. Post presidency the ONLY thing I see as a positive is his building homes for low income people. His intentions of being a man of peace are valid but his meddling in international affairs was not even welcome by the Clinton administration. He even has a Nobel Peace prize to boot.
Trying to bring peace versus peace actually being accomplished are two very different things. I guess in todays World results dont mean as much especially if youre a Democrat.
So if 64 percent of the public approve of Carter as President all I can say is that half of that number polled know very little about the man. So much for history being taught in classrooms and the MSM making or destroying, as in the case of Bush, a man.
As I said Bush will never be looked upon favorably until we are all dead and gone. This is very sad but true.
Skipper // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:52 am
Does the poll reflect what people remember about the Carter years (most are too young), or is this just “respect” for an elder former president who is vague in most minds?
mevoici // Jan 22, 2009 at 8:19 am
I would only cite President Carter as an example of how an ex-President should not behave. His continued meddling and moral pompousness have not impressed me a bit.
Canadian liberal // Jan 22, 2009 at 8:32 am
I agree that the current attempts to burnish President Bush’ legacy are failing, but perhaps because they are led by the same people who damaged his presidency in the first place.
Coming from north of the border, my observations on the good and bad of the last 8 years should be viewed through the lens of the media that helped shape these observations. But I think it is commonly understood that both election campaigns that Bush “won” were very hard-fought, to-the-death efforts that left half the US populace galvanized against this President. The nastiness of these campaigns, as primarily promulgated by Mr. Rove, tainted the presidency. There was little to no reserve of good opinion that President Bush could turn to when he made his (some would say inevitable) mistakes.
The win at all costs attitude got him in the door, alright, but left him no room to maneuver once inside. Its a shame, but inevitable. While its early yet, I would guess that Obama’s high-road approach, in the campaign and since, has won over many who did not vote for him and will serve him well through his Presidency.
erasmuse // Jan 22, 2009 at 9:08 am
Bush doesn’t need to redeem himself. His approval ratings did just fine with Republicans. They were abysmal with Democrats, but he should take that as a badge of pride. See
http://rasmusen1.blogspot.com/2009/01/bushs-average-approval-ratings-compared.html
R.E. Munn // Jan 22, 2009 at 9:14 am
The whole thrust of Mr. Francis’ post deals with how best to, pardon the vernacular, put lipstick on a pig. What is the point? The fact that 64% of the public approve of the way Carter handled his term in office means exactly what? Does this “support” alter the results of Carter’s lamentable presidency? Of course not. Regardless of what the public might think about Carter or Bush, the most reliable and dispassionate appraisals of each will be only after the passage of a generation or two. That having been said, for many of us Cater continues to be an embarrassment, giving him high marks for consistency.
mevoici // Jan 22, 2009 at 9:20 am
My recollection of the Bush campaigns is that they were close, but not especially nasty, unless of course you are referring to the NAACP ad blaming Bush for what amounted to a lynching of a black man in his home state of Texas. The idea of Bush/Rove being nasty and mean spirited is something made up of whole cloth by the media and Bush’s political opponents and which the Canadian liberal has swallowed hook, line, and sinker. When Bush came to Washington as a successful two term governor of Texas, it was with a reputation of being even handed and bipartisan. The Washington political culture completely destroyed that and one of his biggest failings was his inability to understand what was being done to him and how to respond to it.
MarkG555 // Jan 22, 2009 at 10:38 am
And while he’s at it, he can undermine President Obama’s foreign policies in public remarks to foreign audiences. What the heck; Carter got away with it.
I note by the way that it took about 20 years for Truman to be recognized as having been a good president. But going on 30 years after Carter left office, has there been a single serious book arguing that he did a good job in office? Can any impartial observer deny that Carter was one of the 2 or 3 least effective presidents of the century?
Khornet // Jan 22, 2009 at 11:17 am
It was a CNN poll. I have no doubt that the questions were framed to give the desired result.
Clarence Darrow // Jan 22, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Great comments all!
ChristianMiller // Jan 22, 2009 at 3:26 pm
This article is pretty galling to me as someone who spent much energy defending Bush.
Bush never properly defended himself nor did he have his underlings defend him in any real way. Whenever the press gave him a free shot at his vociferous mean-spirited opponents his response was “It’s just politics”
Meanwhile dishonest memes lingered and compounded. Now you think he should repair his image? Why should we care? Why do you care? He just left us with Obama and McCain. He has left us with Socialism and Statism why should we care about his legacy? People like me lay dead on the political battlefield thanks to Bush..
P. Aaron // Jan 22, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Carter was awful. He even disliked America’s promise probably because other countries’ crappy policies left them wanting, Carter worked hard so that Americans should suffer as well.
With the exception of ‘Habitat’, Carter also meddled and flunked the class test by being critical of a sitting President…in a time of WAR! A trait that it seems only former Republican Presidents restrain themselves from doing.
Hey Canadian Liberal: perhaps you thought Bush’s campaign style was “nasty” because it was critical of ideas and candidates you preferred. But Kerry was/is a phony, and Gore…well the evidence is piling up about his exhuberance to. I recommend you ‘google’ and learn the details of G.W. Bush’s Crawford ranch and how environmentally extraordinary it is, compared to Al Gore’s excesses in Tennessee.
MittMan // Jan 22, 2009 at 6:22 pm
First, I don’t accept the premise that Bush’s reputation is ’shattered’ in any way.
If people who call themselves Conservatives don’t stop picking up the mainstream media mantra and echoing such nonsense, then the lie will become the truth.
I expect those on the left filled with blind hatred to say and write such things but not those on our side.
Get a clue and quit being useful idiots to the left. Don’t we have enough of those (McCain, Graham, ext.) who are supposedly on our side already?
My biggest shame is the way cowards in the GOP left Bush get savaged by the media without coming to his defense. When Clinton committed perjury the entire Democratic House and Senate membership stood with him at the White House to show support.
I’m disgusted with Republicans for their total lack of a spine during the Bush years.
The only shattered reputation is that of the GOP as a party. Grow some grapes you cowards!
sinz54 // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:28 pm
MittMan: Why should us conservatives have come to Bush’s defense, when he was so inarticulate in his OWN defense? Over and over, Bush made momentous decisions and never directly explained to the American people the rationale for them: The creation of Gitmo. The treatment of al-Qaeda terrorists as civilian enemy combatants, not common criminals or soldiers. The creation of military commissions (not civilian courts) to try al-Qaeda terrorists. The ORIGINAL rationale for getting rid of Saddam Hussein (which had nothing to do with WMD). The decision to disband the Iraqi army after Saddam fell. The multi-hundred-billion dollar Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors (even conservatives were deeply troubled by that one). The Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). On and on.
Each one of these should have been the subject of a major televised address to the nation by Bush. As far as I can recall, none of them was.
It’s not the job of rank-and-file conservatives to pull Bush’s chestnuts out of the fire and defend his decisions to the American people. That’s his job first.
AnotherThought // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:56 pm
The current day poll numbers on Carter’s presidency and Bush’s outgoing poll numbers prove one thing to me: somewhere in the neighborhood of 65% of Americans are ignorant.
senorlechero // Jan 22, 2009 at 9:35 pm
AnotherThought….Great Post.
MittMan…yours is really good too
MittMan // Jan 23, 2009 at 11:52 am
Thank you senorlechero. I also want to thank sinz54 for amply illustrating my point.
Note to you, sinz54 – most real Conservatives don’t have issue with Bush’s actions regarding the establishment of Gitmo and the treatment of terrorist scum. I’m sure before the day is out though you will likely have your fellow trolls masquerading as Conservatives to argue the point in this thread.
sinz54 // Jan 24, 2009 at 11:19 am
MittMan, I’ve been a conservative since Nixon. Where were you back then? I’m not interested in what your conception of a “real conservative” (whatever that means) should or should not believe. You cannot win an election all by yourselves. You dwell on that for a while. What I pointed out in my post, which you misread, was that Bush made a lot of momentous decisions in his administration. Some good, some not so good. But he never bothered to go before the American people in a prime-time television address and explain the rationale for most of them. The decisions to open Gitmo, to consider terrorists to be neither common criminals nor soldiers of a foreign army but rather as “civilian enemy combatants,” the decision to try them by military commissions–all of these were announced by various lower-level officials, often in press releases, and slipped by the public. Until critics raised the issues with the public and essentially won the argument by default. Bush and Cheney thought the right way to win the War on Terror was to do it behind the backs of the American people. They were dead wrong.
wondering // Jan 25, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I wandered onto this mean street by accident but then got fascinated by the comments. Now I’m wondering what it is all you conservatives liked about Bush. His big spending on Medicare drug benefits? His budget deficits? His federal intrusion into public education? His disregard for civil liberties? His nation-building? Or was it enough to just cut taxes and be against abortion?
MittMan // Jan 27, 2009 at 11:35 am
Hey wondering, I’m wondering what color the sky is in your world.
Bush’s ‘intrusion’ into public education? What is that supposed to mean? Last I checked, the President does appoint the head of the DOE, but Democrats have done the same thing when they were in charge so it must only be an intrusion when Republicans are president.
On the budget deficits issue, there was no balanced budget when Bush came into office. Your side continues to use the taxes collected on SS benefits in your calculations to show the budget balanced under Clinton, a gimic that credible economists said was glossing over the fact that we still had a deficit. I’m not excusing the domestic deficit spending with all the pork projects of both parties that Bush signed off on, but the attacks of 9-11 were a big reason our spending went up as a nation.
As for civil liberties, exactly what in thel are you talking about? Point out one American who has had their civil liberties trampled on, and I mean REAL people with real FACTS not some shadowy person you claim to know or some silly charged that you can’t prove. Gut feelings don’t count, bucco. You’re just a fool signing the left-wing song. Keep humming it to yourself and looking at your rainbow-colored sky.