From inside the West Wing, time and again we saw President Carter take one truly gutsy step after another, spending his political capital in the longer-term interests of the country. If that is a definition of failure, then we should come up with better ways to measure our political leaders.
Speaking of failed presidencies, it is virtually certain that the administration of George W. Bush will be put in that category, despite the fact that he was elected to a second term in office. Central to the negative assessment will be the war in Iraq—how it was engineered and how it was prosecuted from the Pentagon (and I say that as a Democrat who supported the decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein, and who continues to believe it was the right policy to pursue, even in view of its tragically flawed execution).
But “Bush 43” also failed when one looks at federal spending, which soared during his two terms in office, despite the fact that he had a Republican majority in Congress for much of that time. Perhaps most egregious in this regard was Bush’s failure to veto a single piece of legislation because it contained too much spending. “W” and his team should have put their personal disdain for Jimmy Carter in cold storage just long enough to read up on how he took on members of his own party in Congress in order to restrain spending and to put the kibosh on bad projects. Imagine what might have happened to the “bridge to nowhere” if there had been a bit more presidential resolve and a lot less Rove-ian bluster!
When talking about the prospects for peace in the Middle East or the nature of the U.S. presidency—and much, much more—I am among those who believe that we are better off today because Jimmy Carter was once our president.