PDF Summary:His Very Best, by Jonathan Alter

Jimmy Carter isn’t remembered as a great president, but he’s come to be revered for his work as a humanitarian. However, in His Very Best, biographer Jonathan Alter presents a fresh perspective on the groundbreaking work Carter did in Washington. Instead of focusing on the hardships America suffered during Carter’s time in office, Alter draws attention to the long-term effects of what Carter accomplished while president. Alter paints Carter as deeply principled yet politically short-sighted in a way that let him achieve great things while undermining his legacy.

In this guide, we’ll show how Carter’s early life shaped his political career and his journey to the presidency. We’ll look at the various roles he’s played—politician, reformer, diplomat, and global humanitarian. We’ll also explore the political context that shaped Carter’s years in the White House, as well as the conflict between Carter’s values and the compromises required of anyone in high office.

(continued)...

(Shortform note: As Carter did in the ’70s, many modern Southerners struggle with conflating regional pride with historical symbols of oppression. The push to remove Civil War monuments has been met with both resistance and support amidst the debate over how to best represent the American South’s troubled past. Negative stereotypes of the South persist, such as Southerners being viewed as ignorant and racist. Nevertheless, many Southern natives take pride in the things that sprang from their multicultural heritage, such as music, literature, cuisine, athletics, and an overall culture of hospitality—a sentiment that’s shared by white and black Southerners alike.)

Carter for President

Just as he eyed the governorship while serving in the Georgia State Senate, Carter turned his ambitions to the presidency while serving his term as governor. Carter’s homespun values of honesty and integrity came as a breath of fresh air in the cynical 1970s and made his longshot candidacy a viable bid for the White House. Carter leveraged the disillusionment voters felt after the Watergate scandal to present himself as a Washington outsider—an honest man of faith who’d restore the nation’s dignity. Coupled with strategic campaigns in crucial regions of the country, this strategy would win Carter a narrow victory over incumbent President Gerald Ford.

The Watergate Scandal

The Watergate Scandal that opened the door to Carter’s long-shot presidential campaign began in 1972 when agents of President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign were caught stealing documents and attempting to wiretap the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters in the Watergate building in Washington, DC. Nixon denied any connection with the break-in and won reelection, though questions remained about his level of involvement.

After an investigation by the FBI and a series of exposés by Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, Nixon’s cover-up of his part in the scandal came to light, leading him to resign from office in 1974 rather than face impeachment by Congress. He was replaced by Vice President Gerald Ford, who then pardoned Nixon of any crimes he may have committed, an act that cast a shadow on the rest of Ford’s presidency.

Distrust of government was at an all-time high, which Carter saw as a nationwide emotional crisis. His public reaction to Watergate was one of disappointment instead of anger, and he campaigned on the message that honesty in government was what the country needed most. Carter’s humble background and genial charm cast him as former President Nixon’s opposite. Voters were drawn to Carter’s status as an outsider to national politics, as well as to his promise not to lie to the American public. Alter says that the latter was a stretch—Carter did exaggerate on occasion, and because of his promise, the media held him to a higher standard of truthfulness than his opponents.

(Shortform note: While there’s no absolute measure of a president’s honesty, the Siena College Research Institute conducts regular polls of political experts and presidential historians to rank past presidents on multiple factors. In the 2022 survey, Carter ranked 2nd in integrity—falling short only to “Honest Abe” Lincoln—though Carter scored low in other vital factors, such as 34th on his handling of the economy, 37th in both party leadership and his relationship with Congress, and 40th out of 45 presidents on his amount of luck while in office.)

Despite the fact that Carter made a point of separating politics and religion while governor, he opened up about his Christianity on the presidential campaign trail while still affirming his belief in church and state separation. He framed his faith in terms of love and compassion for all, which came as a balm to many Americans weary from scandals and the war in Vietnam. Alter points out that Carter was the first presidential candidate to identify as Evangelical, a religious group who were just beginning to coalesce as a political force—and who, after Carter, would switch their allegiance to the Republican party.

(Shortform note: In the US, “Evangelical” is a blanket term that encompasses several different Protestant groups united by their belief in the historical accuracy and absolute moral authority of the Bible. One factor that differentiates Evangelicals from other fundamentalist groups, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, is their active engagement in politics. The modern Evangelical movement coalesced in response to the cultural shifts of the 20th century, such as the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, and the sexual revolution of the ’60s and ’70s, all of which were seen as a threat to established institutions and traditional family structures.)

Carter was not the early favorite to win the Democratic nomination, but strategic victories in early state primaries earned him press coverage and national recognition. The US’s political parties weren’t as polarized during this time as they are today, so Carter was able to straddle the liberal/conservative divide by taking progressive stances on racial equity, the environment, and even gay rights while aligning with conservatives on business issues and wasteful government spending. Alter argues that adopting a middle-road stance let Carter win the Democratic nomination without really energizing the party as a whole.

The general election came down to the wire. In the end, Carter won the popular vote by only two percentage points, and the electoral college vote was close as well. Carter’s identity as a Southerner helped him carry that region despite his work towards ending segregation, though Alter suggests that Carter’s win reconfigured the Democratic party by bringing an end to its conservative wing. After 1976, the American South would consistently back Republican candidates in all following elections.

The Changing Democratic Party

The US’s two major parties sprang from the same root—the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson and his allies. After defeating the Federalist Party in 1800, the Democratic-Republicans functioned as the US’s dominant political group until splitting in the presidential election of 1824. The bloc led by John Quincy Adams, which favored the interests of the northeastern states, became known as the National Republicans, whereas supporters of Andrew Jackson, whose power drew heavily from the South, became the Democratic Party.

During the 1800s, the Democratic Party favored limited federal government, but the party fractured in 1860 over the issue of slavery, allowing Lincoln to win the presidency. After the US Civil War, the Democratic Party continued to stand against a strong central government and African-American rights. However, both these positions would change in the 20th century.

The first shift happened when Democratic president Franklin D. Roosevelt expanded the federal government to create work programs and infrastructure projects to lift the country out of the Great Depression. The party remained split on race as northern Democrats like John F. Kennedy pushed civil rights reform while those in the South favored segregation. When Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act during his 1964 campaign, many African-Americans switched to the Democratic Party, which enabled Southern integrationists like Carter to finally act on their views.

Alter says that because Carter had no driving political ideology, he was free to focus on the country as a whole without being beholden to any particular interest groups. Unfortunately, since Carter won by such a narrow margin, his power base would be shaky going forward. Carter had the advantage of a Democratic congress, but during an era when congressmen didn’t strictly vote along party lines. Over the next four years, Carter would attempt to lead the country using logic and practicality, not force of personality. To the consternation of his staff and advisors, he would stubbornly pursue whatever he felt were the right policy decisions without considering the political blowback from his choices.

(Shortform note: During Carter’s term, the political parties weren’t as heavily polarized as they are today. In Why We’re Polarized, Ezra Klein observes that in the 1970s the typical voter was far more likely to split their ballot between Republican and Democratic candidates. As a result, congressmen from both parties would cater to the views of both their liberal and conservative constituents. According to data from the Pew Research Center, both parties were more ideologically centrist during the 1970s and less likely to vote as monolithic groups.)

Carter the Reformer

Carter had campaigned on a promise to correct the course of government, and as soon as he entered office he put that promise into action. Though many of his choices proved unpopular in the short term, Alter contends that Carter enacted many governmental improvements that remain undervalued in the common narrative of his presidency. The lasting changes Carter implemented involved reshaping the administration of the executive branch, taking steps to address US energy policy, and bringing diversity to the judiciary.

(Shortform note: The US government is divided into three co-equal branches—the legislative branch (Congress) that writes and passes laws, the executive branch (headed by the President) responsible for enacting laws and government policy, and the judicial branch (headed by the Supreme Court) which interprets law and on occasion overturns it. US Presidents such as Carter cannot create laws on their own, but they have the power to approve or veto laws passed by Congress as well as to appoint judges and other government positions.)

The most dramatic alterations Carter made to the executive branch were to redefine the roles of the Vice President (VP) and First Lady. Carter positioned VP Walter Mondale as a full partner, including him in all presidential briefings and placing him second in the military chain of command. Carter also included Rosalynn in all briefings and cabinet meetings, except those for which she didn’t have security clearance, and regularly consulted her before making important decisions of state. Finally, he overturned convention by empowering his cabinet members over White House staff, whom he treated in much the same demanding way that his father and Admiral Rickover had treated him—expecting excellence without praise.

(Shortform note: By elevating the role of the Vice President, Carter set a template that others would follow, most notably George W. Bush, under whom VP Dick Cheney did much to reshape tax law, US energy policy, and national security. Likewise, while there were First Ladies who engaged with policy issues before Rosalynn Carter—for example, Eleanor Roosevelt—it has now become expected that the President’s spouse will use their platform to advocate on behalf of various causes. While Rosalynn Carter was sometimes criticized for her political activism, she replied that the role of First Lady should grow to reflect the changing role of women in society.)

The US that Carter inherited was in the midst of steep inflation and gas shortages brought about in part by a reliance on foreign oil. Carter spent his first 100 days in office shaping his National Energy Plan, which he didn’t sugarcoat for the public when he described the energy crisis as an existential threat to the country. The legislation that Carter passed through Congress produced short-term hardships in the form of higher energy costs while curbing inflation in the long run. Carter’s plan also resulted in the creation of the Department of Energy that would oversee future energy research and conservation efforts.

(Shortform note: The energy crisis that impacted Carter’s term began after US oil production peaked in 1971 and declined as demand for fuel rose, resulting in a dependence on oil from the Middle East. In response to President Nixon’s support for Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Arab nations slowed down oil production and decreed an embargo on exports to the US. Even though the embargo ended quickly, the combination of rising energy costs and rampant inflation compounded to keep oil prices high, a situation made worse by a second drop in imports midway through Carter’s term due to the Iranian crisis covered later in this guide.)

A bill passed in 1978 added 152 judicial positions, which Carter used as an opportunity to bring diversity to the court system. He convinced the Senate Judiciary Committee to create an independent commission for nominations, which he then directed to specifically look for minority candidates. In total, Carter appointed more judges than any other president, and his appointees included African-Americans, Hispanics, and women—most notably Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who would later serve on the Supreme Court. Alter suggests that if Carter had had the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice, he would have nominated the first woman to serve. Despite that, Carter successfully reshaped the judiciary in favor of diversity and equality.

(Shortform note: As an example of the lack of diversity within the legal system of the time, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a hard time finding work even as a law clerk, despite graduating at the top of her class from Columbia Law School in 1959. In the ’70s, she argued several sex discrimination cases before the Supreme Court, though her clients were usually men—such as widowers who were denied their wives’ death benefits or a convicted felon whose all-male jury wasn’t representative of his community.)

Carter the Diplomat

On the global stage, Carter distinguished himself as a president who would eschew the use of military strength except as a last resort. Instead, he prioritized maintaining and promoting peace at any cost, including political damage to himself. While Carter’s presidency included dramatic successes such as averting a military crisis in the Panama Canal and negotiating a lasting peace between Israel and Egypt, his legacy was ultimately marred by his response to the Iranian Revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis, which we’ll discuss in a later section.

Alter writes that Carter was determined to do the right thing regardless of the political consequences. A prime example of this was giving Panama control of the Panama Canal, which by treaty belonged to the US forever. Perpetual American control of the canal bred anti-US resentment in Panama and neighboring countries that threatened to erupt into violence. Had it done so, the US would have been forced to defend the canal and all the traffic through it in a conflict that might have eclipsed the Vietnam War in scope and duration. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Ford had all broached the topic of transferring ownership of the canal to Panama, but it had been blocked by fierce congressional opposition.

Carter’s fellow politicians considered any attempt to give away the canal to be tantamount to political suicide, but Alter says that Carter viewed indefinite US control to be morally unjust to the Panamanian people. Carter hashed out a new deal with Panama, and to get it ratified by the Senate, he framed it as two separate treaties—one ensuring that the canal would remain open and neutral, and another handing over control of the canal to Panama in 1999. The neutrality treaty passed by one vote, and Carter spent a lot of political capital to make sure the handover treaty passed as well. Though giving away the canal proved unpopular in the US, it protected a vital global trade route and kept the US out of another costly war.

Short-Term Pain and Long-Term Gain

Though there were strategic and economic arguments for retaining control of the Panama Canal, the US’s reluctance to relinquish power was also a matter of national pride. In the aftermath of the US withdrawal from Vietnam, many Americans felt that pulling out of Panama was a similar blow to their national pride, one which Carter’s opponents painted as a sign of America’s decline on the global stage. Nevertheless, declassified documents from the ’60s and ’70s reveal rising tensions between Panamanian and US officials over the treatment of Panamanians in the Canal Zone and a rising perception of US colonialism that led to violent demonstrations.

Despite Carter’s difficulties in arranging the transfer, his treaties were never challenged afterward, even during the US’s 1989 invasion of Panama to oust the dictator Manuel Noriega. The final canal handover in 1999 resulted in Panama’s rapid economic growth, which is four times higher than that of its neighbors. Meanwhile, the loss of American governance hasn’t harmed the US economy—instead, a 2016 expansion to the canal has created US jobs, lowered shipping costs, and relieved congestion at US ports.

The Camp David Accords

Another conflict where Carter felt compelled to intervene was that between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Though open fighting halted in 1973, Egypt and Israel were still technically at war, and thousands of Palestinians lived in refugee camps. Carter valued Israel because of his religious convictions, but Alter says Carter sympathized with the Palestinians, whom he felt were enduring the same conditions that his Black neighbors had during segregation. He reached out to Middle Eastern leaders in the hopes of brokering a lasting peace and connected strongly with Egyptian president Anwar Sadat. Carter hosted talks between Sadat and Israel’s prime minister Menachem Begin at Camp David, the presidential retreat outside Washington.

Over two weeks of intense negotiations, Carter mediated between the two leaders, doing everything he could to produce an agreement. Alter explains that just as with Panama, Carter arrived at a two-treaty solution—one to ensure Israel’s withdrawal from Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and one to restrict Israel’s presence in the West Bank while talks continued toward Palestinian independence. While the latter never came to fruition, the peace between Egypt and Israel has held since the Camp David Accords were accepted.

Middle East Peace and US Interests

One might question why the US (under Carter or any other president) should act as an intermediary in foreign conflicts. In Battlegrounds, Gen. H.R. McMaster argues that especially in the Middle East, regional violence and instability have a tendency to spread elsewhere in the world. Whereas Israel has been an ally of the US since its establishment in 1948, McMaster suggests that secular governments such as Egypt’s in the 1970s were a boon to the US’s security interests because they helped keep radical religious extremists in check.

A point of common ground between Begin, Carter, and Sadat that Alter hints at but doesn’t explore is their shared anti-Soviet animosity. Sadat viewed the USSR as a colonialist power and cut ties with the Soviets upon becoming Egypt’s president, while Begin was well aware of the Soviet Union’s oppression of Russian Jews. After Carter, Sadat, and Begin reached a peace agreement, the Soviet Union came out in vocal opposition to it, in part to stoke fears about US influence among its Arab allies and in part because the Camp David Accords had served to undermine the USSR’s importance in the Middle East.

The Iran Hostage Crisis

While Carter was achieving a measure of success negotiating peace between Israel and Egypt, the political situation in Iran was deteriorating faster than anyone in the US realized. The Iranian Revolution and the 444-day hostage crisis that followed would become for many people the defining historical event of Carter’s presidency, completely dominating his last year in office. Alter details the road to the crisis, Carter’s resistance to using military force, and the final push to free the hostages just as Carter’s presidency came to its end.

In Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini gained a following as a fierce critic of Mohammad Reza Shah, Iran’s dictator since 1953, but the CIA never saw Khomeini as a serious threat to world peace. In 1978, the shah’s health began failing, and Khomeini’s supporters launched violent protests to demand the shah’s removal. Alter writes that when the shah asked the US for aid to prop up his regime, Carter refused, believing that without a dictator, Iran would return to democratic rule. Suffering from cancer, the shah went into exile in January 1979 to seek medical treatment abroad while Khomeini amassed power in his country.

(Shortform note: Carter’s hope that Iran would become a democracy once the shah stepped down is an example of what McMaster calls “strategic narcissism” in Battlegrounds. In particular, Carter’s belief was based on a faulty assumption—shared by many American policymakers—that nations inevitably become capitalist democracies as the result of a natural progression over time, though history has shown this is not always the case.)

Alter argues that there was nothing Carter could have done to prevent the shah’s downfall or Khomeini’s rise to power, but he notes that Carter was taken aback by the strength of anti-US sentiment in Iran. So as not to stoke that anger—and to protect US citizens still in Iran—Carter repeatedly denied the shah entry into the US until October 1979, when he was told that the shah would die without treatment at an American hospital. Giving in to his humanitarian values, Carter granted the shah temporary medical asylum. The Iranian response was stronger than anyone expected.

The Shah and the Ayatollah

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, commonly referred to as the shah, or “king,” succeeded his father as Iran’s constitutional monarch in 1941. He gradually amassed power over the following decades, bringing the army under his control and sidelining the country’s elected government. Though he made reforms to modernize Iran, by the time of Carter’s presidency the Iranian people saw the shah as a proxy for US and British control of their nation.

The shah’s rival, Rouhollah Khomeini, was a popular religious leader, or “ayatollah,” who opposed the shah’s measures to liberalize Iranian society, such as giving non-Muslims and women the right to vote. In 1963, Khomeini was imprisoned for speaking against the shah, triggering anti-government demonstrations. Khomeini was later exiled from the country, but that didn’t silence his criticism of the shah. While Alter writes that the intelligence community was blind to Khomeini and the rise of his followers, declassified documents from US staff in Iran show that officials there knew about Khomeini’s growing Islamist movement, but their warnings went unnoticed by their Washington superiors.

The Hostages Are Taken

Islamist groups within Iran believed the shah’s presence in the US was part of a scheme to return the shah to power. On November 4, 1979, under Khomeini’s direct approval, Iranian students stormed the US embassy in Tehran looking for evidence of a plot against Iran, taking the staff as prisoners in what was meant to be a short occupation. A rescue was unfeasible since Tehran was so far from US military forces. More than that, Carter feared that any attack would result in hostage deaths while dragging the US into another war. Carter placed sanctions on Iranian oil, froze Iranian bank accounts within the US, and made one attempt at a military rescue that failed because of the US military’s inability to coordinate between branches.

(Shortform note: Despite Carter’s sanctions’ failure to achieve a swift release of the hostages, his actions set a template for negotiation that’s been followed by successive US presidents in dealing with conflicts with Iran. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan banned Iranian imports in response to attacks in the Persian Gulf, whereas President Bill Clinton did the same in 1995 to discourage Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons technology. In 2018, President Donald Trump reimposed sanctions that had been previously lifted as part of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal. According to the US State Department, sanctions have proved an effective tool for curbing Iran’s military strength and its funding of terrorism in neighboring countries.)

Within Iran, Khomeini used his control of the crisis to establish himself as the head of a constitutional theocracy while not allowing hostage negotiations to take place unless the shah was returned to stand trial for alleged crimes against the Iranian people. Once it was clear that Carter wasn’t going to retaliate, Khomeini knew he could hold the hostages indefinitely. At home, the hostage crisis brought the American people together while painting Carter as an ineffective leader. Alter states that this was also the US public’s first introduction to radical Islam.

(Shortform note: Beyond painting Carter’s presidency in a negative light, the hostage crisis affected the attitudes of an entire generation of US citizens. Dramatic images of Muslim revolutionaries chanting “Death to America” solidified a perception in the American mind equating Islam with terrorism and violence. Analysis of the public response to the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal suggests that Americans who reached adulthood before or during the hostage crisis were unsupportive of any favorable dealings with Iran even four decades later, while younger generations who weren’t closely aware of the crisis were more in favor of a peaceful resolution to their contemporary conflict.)

The Hostage Crisis Ends

Carter devoted nearly all his focus to resolving the hostage situation, attempting to negotiate through other countries as intermediaries instead of campaigning hard for reelection. Even the shah’s death in June 1980 didn’t bring about the hostages' release. Instead, Alter suggests that two other factors caused Khomeini to finally relent. One was Iraq’s invasion of Iran under the command of Saddam Hussein—suddenly, Iran needed access to the funds that were frozen in US bank accounts. The second factor was a fear that Carter’s electoral opponent, Ronald Reagan, wouldn’t share Carter’s hesitation to use military force if he won the election.

(Shortform note: New accusations regarding the hostages’ release came to light in early 2023, after Alter had written his biography of Carter. Retired legislator Ben Barnes told The New York Times that in 1980 he accompanied former Texas governor John Connally on a trip to the Middle East, during which Barnes alleges that Connally sabotaged Carter’s negotiations by telling Arab leaders that the hostages shouldn’t be released until after the presidential election. Barnes claims that Connally sent a message to Iran that Reagan would offer more favorable terms for the hostages’ freedom than Carter would.)

Thanks to Carter’s divided attention, the state of the economy, and the crisis in Iran, Reagan won a landslide victory. Nevertheless, Carter’s work wasn’t finished. In the final days of his presidency, Carter at last brokered a deal for the hostages’ freedom, though Khomeini delayed their release until Reagan took the oath of office. President Reagan announced the end of the crisis while Carter and Mondale flew to Germany to greet the freed captives in person. Although the public had turned against Carter, Alter reiterates that the president had kept the US out of war throughout all four years of his term, a feat unmatched by any following president.

(Shortform note: While the Iran hostage crisis was unusual in its extended duration and the way that it dominated global attention, it wasn’t by any means the last such situation. During the Lebanese Civil War from 1975-1990, over 100 foreign nationals were kidnapped and held hostage, either for ransom or political concessions, especially after Israel’s invasion of southern Lebanon in 1982. In 1986, President Reagan was accused of trading weapons to Iran in exchange for American captives in Lebanon. Though Reagan denied involvement in any “arms for hostages” deal, the scandal tainted the remainder of his presidency, though not to the extent that the Iranian crisis damaged Carter’s.)

Carter the Humanitarian

Unlike other ex-presidents, Carter didn’t retire from public life or cash in on his fame. Instead, he leveraged his status as a former head of state to further humanitarian causes around the world. Alter writes that Carter’s most strident efforts were in brokering peace with dictatorial regimes and promoting public health reform in developing nations. However, Alter says that despite the public perception of Carter’s work in later years, his time in the White House was far more impactful than any of his actions as a former president.

(Shortform note: The idea that Carter’s presidency is generally underrated is shared by several other biographers. In The Outlier, award-winning author Kai Bird argues that Carter was the hardest-working president of modern times and that he achieved more in office than some presidents who followed. In The Unfinished Presidency, historian Douglas Brinkly argues that Carter’s accomplishments in later years wouldn’t have been possible without the diplomatic groundwork he’d begun while in the White House. In President Carter, American diplomat Stuart E. Eizenstat gives an inside view of the Carter administration that is critical of the former president’s flaws while emphasizing Carter’s unsung achievements.)

In 1982, Carter built upon his presidential library to develop the Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia—a diplomatic meeting ground for leaders from around the world. Meanwhile, Carter has often reached out to world leaders in regions marred by conflict—in Africa, the Middle East, and even North Korea—going so far as to meet with dictators guilty of serious human rights abuses. Alter argues that for Carter, bringing an end to violence is a necessary first step to improving human rights around the world.

(Shortform note: The Carter Center continues to partner with political advocacy groups and foreign governments to host discussions on voting rights, fair elections, and engaging people in the democratic process. As a nonprofit, the Carter Center ranks very high in transparency, efficiency, and making impactful use of its resources. Nevertheless, the independent monitoring group Charity Watch downgraded the Carter Center as a charitable recipient, not due to any ethical or financial failure, but because as of 2022 the Carter Center is so flush with funds that it could continue to operate for 10 more years without receiving any additional donations.)

The Carter Center also channels philanthropic funds to support countries struggling with public health problems. In Africa, the Carter Center’s initiatives have been particularly successful in negotiating with governments and pharmaceutical companies to halt the spread of debilitating diseases. Alter says that thanks to the Carter Center’s efforts, Guinea worm disease has been almost completely eradicated. Because of Carter’s humanitarian outreach, he’s well-loved in many countries that are otherwise anti-US.

(Shortform note: Part of the reason for Carter’s popularity overseas may be due to his personal engagement with people in struggling communities. While Alter touches on this subject, those who’ve worked with Carter describe in detail the ways in which Carter personally reached out to people with illnesses in impoverished nations, acting as an on-the-ground advocate more than as a remote administrator. In modern Africa, Carter is thought of as someone who’s shown far more concern for their continent than other Western leaders.)

Alter concludes by observing that Carter’s long and active ex-presidency has shifted the public perception of him since the days when he was voted out of office. In his later years, Carter’s life has been reexamined not in terms of his failings as a president and politician, but for embodying his fundamental values of integrity, hard work, and compassion.

Jimmy Carter’s Legacy

Jimmy Carter’s long, productive life has been celebrated by the many accolades he’s received. In addition to winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, he was given the UN Human Rights Award in 1998, the O’Connor Justice Prize in 2017, and the Gerald R. Ford Medal for Distinguished Public Service. Carter’s memoir An Hour Before Daylight was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, and he’s won three Grammy Awards for Best Spoken Word Album for the audio productions of his books Our Endangered Values, A Full Life, and Faith.

On February 18, 2023, at the age of 98, Carter went into hospice care at his home in Plains, Georgia. While Carter’s health issues haven’t been disclosed, the purpose of hospice care is to make a person’s final days or months as comfortable as possible rather than fighting to prolong their life. It was later announced that Rosalynn Carter, at the age of 95, was suffering symptoms of dementia. Jimmy Carter’s failing health was met with an outpouring of tributes by politicians and public figures. In May 2023, the Carters’ grandson reported that Jimmy and Rosalynn were happy together and appreciative of all the support they’d received.