Carter’s record too often overlooked

My father and I were sitting on our front steps one evening months before the 1980 presidential election. There was a lot of discontent with then-president Jimmy Carter over foreign affairs, inflation and other issues. Dad asked who I thought would be a good president. I mentioned a columnist who prophesied that eventual U.S. president Ronald Reagan could come “roaring back” at age 69 in 1980.

I told Dad we should consider Reagan. He still seemed vibrant and not intimidated by Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini. That seemed like a reasonable contrast to Carter’s more diplomatic approach.

It seems quaint today, but 69 was once considered too old to be president. In our angst over the Iranian hostage crisis, we forgot that contrast was the reason we elected Carter. America sought an anti-Nixon and he fit the bill.

Reagan’s win over Carter left me more relieved than gleeful. I felt some validation when the hostages were released after Reagan’s swearing-in, but took no pleasure in Carter’s loss. He struck me as an earnest man who tried but came up short—until you look closer. Almost lost among some detractors are Carter’s efforts to conserve energy in America. And of course, the historic Camp David Accords. On a more personal note, his 77-year marriage to the late Rosalynn Carter reminds us that “in sickness and in health” are more than just words.

If there were a Mount Rushmore for modern post-presidential legacies, Jimmy Carter would likely be on it — probably by himself.

Jim Newton

Itasca