The linking of leadership
with a position, whether atop a government or a corporation, is so well established that it
is easy for us to overlook U.S. President Carter as a leader because he was such a micromanager while in office.
Carter’s steady leadership by example, and thus by acting as a symbol, began after he had lost
re-election. Nelson Mandela of South Africa had led as a symbol in civil rights
before he was elected president, and Gandhi effectively exercised
ethical political, moral and religious leadership without holding any office.
The reductionism or, at the very least, the mere association of leadership with
holding an office biases how we evaluate leaders, as distinct from governors.
During his presidency, Carter was
recurrently labeled as a technocratic micromanager. This proclivity was no
doubt formed from his vocational background as a nuclear engineer in the navy. A
perspective does not get more micro than that. Such a perspective is at odds
with being atop of a large organization, not to mention the U.S. Government in
occupying its presiding office. Whereas President Reagan could be criticized
for too much of the “the vision thing” at the expense of being the chief executive
of federal agencies, at least visionary leadership fits very well with the
office, whereas a technocratic orientation does not.
To be sure, Carter was hardly
a failure in office, despite the general sense of the country during his last
year in office as Reagan was campaigning in part on government being part of
the problem. Even though Reagan strongly backed Paul Volker’s strong anti-inflation
“medicine” at the Federal Reserve Bank even as its high discount rate exacerbated
the unemployment part of “stagflation,” which had pummeled Carter’s popularity
during his years in office, Carter had achievements that lasted well past his
presidency.
As per one journalist’s
analysis at the end of 2024, Carter’s “administration pursued the antitrust
case vs AT&T which led to its break-up early in [the Reagan]
administration. That, and the deregulation of telecommunications that followed
in the 1990s, helped to lead to technological advances for the US economy,
including personal computers and the internet. And he passed and signed bills
to deregulate both the US airline and trucking industries, which significantly lowered
the cost of moving both people and goods, also making the US economy more
competitive. But most of the effectives of those policies weren’t felt during
his one term in office, and thus, most people don’t associate them with Carter.”[1]
He also deregulated the energy sector, which opened up market-incentives for
exploration which would make the U.S. energy-sufficient. This is no small feat,
considering the leverage the oil-producing states (OPEC) had over the U.S. in
1974 and 1979 as reduced gasoline supplies resulted in long lines at gas
stations and thus frustrated voters.
In foreign policy, Carter
anticipated his work at the Carter Center by successfully negotiating a peace
treaty between Egypt and Israel, which bore fruit decades later when Egypt did
not attack Israel amid the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza beginning in 2023.
Even Carter’s successful negotiation to bring the American hostages home from
Iran was not generally evident before Carter left office because the Iranian
government held off the release until Reagan had been sworn in as president; Carter
had angered the Iranians by having given permission to the Shah of Iran to get
medical treatment in the United States.
The long-term benefits of some
of Carter’s most significant work as president may seem ironic, given that
president’s micromanaging approach at the expense of exercising paradigmatic
visionary leadership. Even in running for re-election, Carter simply could not
compete with Reagan’s orientation to enunciating a new paradigm as an ideal
vision not only of the U.S, but of the world as well (e.g., peace through
strength in dealing with the U.S.S.R.). Fortunately, long-term benefits from
Carter’s work did not end on the day that Reagan because the 40th
American president. For Carter was instrumental in knocking out some hitherto
intractable diseases in Africa and in furthering the reputation of democracy
internationally by monitoring elections in vulnerable countries. His labor in
constructing houses in the Habitat for Humanity organization was a symbol that
drew attention not only to poverty, but to shelter as a fundamental human right—something
virtually unheard of in American culture. Moreover, his forty years of post-presidency
work steadily etched humanitarianism in an otherwise occupied American consciousness,
and perhaps even globally as well—certainly in Africa. From his example, a
vision is evident of the salience that humanitarianism and honest democracy can
have even in government policy. To be sure, his self-discipline in office following
Nixon and Ford so as not to present the American people with another dishonest (Nixon)
and enabling/corrupt (e.g., Ford’s pardon) president sent a message that
government can indeed be led honestly, which has doubtless long-term benefits. There
was no day of national mourning either for Nixon or Ford—or even Reagan, whose
emphasis on visionary leadership fit the presidency so well. Indeed, praises
for Carter upon his death were bipartisan—something that was clearly not the
case when Reagan died.
In short, it is shortsighted
to evaluate former heads of government based only on what they did while and
office, and especially on the impacts from the decisions before the next
election. This is not to say that the American people were wholly misguided in
handing Reagan a landslide victory, for Reagan, unlike Carter, was willing to
give Americans the hard economic medicine necessary to end first inflation,
then recession. Moreover, Reagan’s orientation to the job of presiding by
enunciating a societal (and world) vision rather than by micromanaging by
taking small decisions meant that he was the more fitting candidate for office.
Perhaps had Carter volunteered
to build houses and engaged foundations to eradicate stubborn diseases in
Africa while he was in office, he might have been more in line with the use of
symbol to sketch a vision both for American government and society, but this is
doubtful because the perception of his weakness relative both to OPEC (and Iran,
given the failed rescue attempt and no follow-up attempt) and “stagflation” was
based on something actual. In contrast, Reagan proffered a strong state in
tackling inflation, which happened, and U.S. budget deficits, which did not
happen, and peace through strength in dealing with the U.S.S.R., a Communist
dictatorship with nuclear weapons. It is important in remembering a former head
of government to look realistically at not only what one did both before
and after holding office, but also what things were like while the
person had formal power. This is especially so in looking at leadership,
which does not depend on being exercised in a formal office, even if the office
is tailor-made for leadership as distinct from management. Carter was too much
of a manager while in office, and he excelled at leadership vision via symbol
(and example) outside of office.
