Daily Herald opinion: More than a humble humanitarian: Carter’s political legacy is often overlooked and overshadowed by his work after leaving office

There is a measure of unfortunate injustice in the assessment of Jimmy Carter as a determined humanitarian whose tireless good works in the latter half of his life overshadowed failings of his single, difficult term as United States president.

The good works of his private, post-presidential experience cannot be discounted, of course. He championed human rights around the globe, monitored elections in troubled countries and advanced the cause of democracy. He built homes and raised millions of dollars to help struggling Americans. He taught Sunday School his entire life in the town where he grew up. He and his wife Rosalynn built a true marital partnership lasting 77 years. As a person, he was an impressive blend of humanitarian compassion, spiritual commitment and tireless dedication to good works.

His political life is not so charitably remembered. His presidency has been largely disparaged as a study in incompetence. Good man, bad president, declares the shorthand assessment.

But that characterization is only partially true. He was not as politically ineffectual as his image is usually portrayed. He was handed a difficult task coming into office on the heels of a Nixon-Ford economy dominated by inflation and WIN buttons in an atmosphere of political corruption and distrust. Foreign companies were challenging America’s industrial dominance with cheap labor and high-quality products. The politics of the Middle East were roiling in cultural upheaval and skyrocketing global oil prices.

The tensions in the Mideast would eventually burden his administration with a hostage crisis that transfixed Americans for more than a year and would not end until after he left office. But his administration made momentous achievements on both economic and foreign policy.

His choice of Paul Volcker to head the Federal Reserve Board — and willingness to let Volcker institute tough monetary policies even though they would hurt him politically — finally brought inflation under control and ended a period of unemployment whose depths have not been rivaled since.

He produced perhaps the most significant advance ever toward lasting Middle East peace with a treaty he brokered between Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt that has held, if sometimes shakily, for more than 45 years.

In the end, his political career was done in by a combination of the economic and foreign situations, along with his own party’s effective abandonment of him. His folksy independence and strict Baptist faith were never understood by the Washington political establishment and the difficulties of his time could not be overlooked by a nation struggling with social uncertainty and financial distress.

He had plenty of reason, to be bitter. Instead, he went on to demonstrate the best of American values for humble hard work in the interest of others that cemented the “good person” side of his image, as well they should — especially in a time when humility and personal character is clearly out of fashion in Washington. But the deeds of his post-presidency should not be remembered as merely a kind of atonement for the “bad president” side of his equation.

He perhaps was not totally up to all the demands of his era, but he was a more successful president than he is often given credit for. That, to be sure, is not as enviable an epitaph as that of the humble humanitarian and peacemaker. It is not, in fact, even as important. But it is still a more accurate reflection of his legacy and must be remembered.