By Peter Baker
Jimmy Carter left the presidency in 1981 as one of the least popular leaders in recent history, having lost his reelection bid and seemingly destined to be chronicled as a failed president with little to highlight from his four years in power.
“History will judge him more favorably than the American populace did on Nov. 4,” stated Clark Clifford, the longtime advisor to presidents and one of Washington’s so-called sages. After this mild assessment, he added the stinging remark: “But there was nothing historic about his presidency, nothing particularly noteworthy.”
However, by the time Carter passed away Sunday more than four decades later, the initial part of Clifford’s statement seemed increasingly significant. Though not groundbreaking, many historians now regard Carter’s presidency with more appreciation, a reevaluation driven not just by his time in office but also by his post-presidential contributions. Carter continues to be seen as a symbol of failure by Republicans, and is still invoked by Democrats as a point of contention, particularly against figures like President Joe Biden. Yet, the intense feelings from the 1970s have subsided, and the 39th president’s reputation has been somewhat bolstered by the challenges faced by his successors in the Oval Office.
Carter has not ascended to the ranks of the great presidents, but he is no longer relegated to a lowly status. In historian surveys conducted by Siena College, Carter improved his standing from 33rd place in 1982 shortly after his presidency to 24th in 2022. With several more presidents considered in these evaluations, it signifies that Carter, once rated better than only six other presidents forty years ago, now ranks above 21 others.
“Most citizens will agree that he had a commendable life after the presidency filled with significant contributions, yet they hastily add that his time in office was a failure,” noted Kai Bird, who penned “The Outlier,” a recent examination of Carter’s presidency published in 2021. “Historians have begun to disagree in recent years. His presidency was indeed quite consequential.”
Carter successfully negotiated peace at Camp David between Israel and Egypt, established formal diplomatic connections with China, and achieved the ratification of treaties that transferred control of the Panama Canal to Panama. He aimed to guide the nation beyond the struggles of the previous decade, offering pardons to Vietnam War draft evaders and initiating reforms post-Watergate.
He founded the Departments of Education and Energy and addressed energy issues in a way that anticipated many current discussions on fossil fuels and climate change. He appointed Paul Volcker, the Federal Reserve chairman who ultimately brought inflation under control, and commenced the deregulation of industries and a military escalation that later characterized Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
However, none of this overshadows the challenges of his administration — the economic turmoil, fuel shortages, the so-called malaise he identified in American society, or the Iran hostage crisis that consumed the last 444 days of his presidency. For years, he was the subject of jokes on late-night television and an outcast at Democratic conventions, serving as the example future Democratic leaders aimed to avoid.
Nonetheless, a plethora of new books and films have painted a more nuanced picture for a newer generation that lacks firsthand experiences of that period, such as Kai’s work, Jonathan Alter’s “His Very Best” published in 2020, and “President Carter,” a 2018 book by Stuart Eizenstat, Carter’s former domestic policy adviser. Alongside these publications, two films emerged: “Carterland,” released in 2021 by Will and Jim Pattiz—two young filmmakers born a decade after Carter’s presidency—and “Jimmy Carter: Rock & Roll President,” an engaging documentary by Mary Wharton that aired in 2020 focusing on his connections with musicians like Willie Nelson, Bob Dylan, and the Allman Brothers.
In light of this reassessment, the public sentiment has shifted to a more benevolent view. A Gallup poll last year indicated that 57% of Americans approved of Carter’s handling of his presidency, compared to 36% who disapproved. This places him in a similar league as Bill Clinton (58%) and George W. Bush (57%), and above Donald Trump (46%).
Reevaluating former presidents is, of course, a common phenomenon in history. Dwight Eisenhower was frequently seen as a pleasant but uninspired golfer until Fred Greenstein’s 1982 work “The Hidden-Hand Presidency” revealed a more cunning strategist operating behind the scenes. Similarly, Harry Truman left the White House with low approval ratings only to be rehabilitated by David McCullough’s acclaimed 1992 biography, echoing how Ron Chernow transformed perceptions of Ulysses Grant in his 2017 biography.
Conversely, once-regarded U.S. presidents have seen their prestige decline in recent years. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, once celebrated early pillars of the Democratic Party, have lost favor as their legacies as slave owners have gained more attention. Woodrow Wilson, who was heroically regarded by progressives, is increasingly remembered for his advocacy of segregation and suppression of dissent, as illustrated in Adam Hochschild’s 2022 book, “American Midnight.”
Funerals often serve as opportunities to smooth the rough edges of presidential legacies. By the time Gerald Ford passed away in 2006, many critics had altered their opinions, agreeing that he was justified in pardoning Richard Nixon to help the nation move past Watergate. Following George H.W. Bush’s death, many labeled him one of the most effective one-term presidents for his leadership during the conclusion of the Cold War.
Perhaps most notably was Nixon, who spent two decades after his resignation striving to amend his image through various foreign policy books highlighting his diplomatic successes. At his 1994 funeral, he received a sort of redemption from none other than Clinton, a Democrat whose spouse had participated in the House committee investigating Watergate. “May the day of judging President Nixon on anything less than his full life and career come to an end,” Clinton proclaimed.
Trump has also influenced the reputations of some past presidents. Reagan and the younger Bush, both of whom faced scorn from liberals for years, have lately been mentioned more positively by Democrats than Republicans as counterexamples to Trump.
Carter, who passed away at 100, had an unprecedented opportunity to reshape public opinion, living longer than any former president in American history. His post-presidency endeavors in human rights, conflict mediation, election oversight, and disease control, alongside the homes he built for Habitat for Humanity, reminded Americans of the qualities they admired in him rather than those they disdained.
“Jimmy Carter campaigned for the presidency as an outsider, and upon leaving the office, he reverted to that same status,” remarked Lawrence Wright, author of “Thirteen Days in September,” pertaining to the Camp David accords. “He lived modestly in his home in Plains, Georgia, teaching Sunday school at the Maranatha Baptist Church. His extensive record of civic engagement has fostered a significantly more favorable perspective on his presidency.”
