Jimmy Carter has long held the reputation in popular culture as America’s most left-leaning and weakest president.
Carter was always skeptical of military force. In his first major foreign policy speech after declaring his candidacy for president, he declared his intent to withdraw American forces from Korea. Few paid attention since he was such a long-shot candidate, but after he became its nominee, the Democratic National Convention adopted a platform calling for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. ground forces from South Korea.
The Democrats justified the move in tough love for South Korean President Park Chung-hee, whom they believed was corrupt and whose human rights record was poor. For Carter, this was not an abandonment: The United States would rely on an over-the-horizon air and naval strategy to keep North Korea at bay. Sound familiar?
The similarities end there, however. Harold Brown, Carter’s secretary of defense, reported that the North Koreans had reacted to the announcement by building up their forces and preparing for what could be an assault. Carter dropped his wishful thinking and let reality guide his policy. North Korea then shifted its tack and offered talks. Carter again refused, so long as Pyongyang sought to cut Seoul out of any dialogue. The North Koreans then tried a conciliatory approach toward Washington and instead turned their fury toward Japan. Carter refused to abandon a U.S. ally.
Nor was the issue only foreign policy. As inflation edged up and consumer confidence waned, Carter disappeared from the public eye. He huddled with his advisers and then addressed the country. In July 1979, he delivered what became known as the “malaise” speech even though he never uttered that word. “The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways,” he said. “It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.”
President Joe Biden may like to believe he offers tough love, but again he is off the rails: At least Carter acknowledged the reality of inflation and high gas prices rather than trying to wish them away.
Afghanistan, too, was a decision point for Carter. When the Soviet Union invaded the country, Carter not only announced a boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics, but he also covertly agreed to help the Afghan resistance. Today, China conducts the most systematic genocide against its Uyghur population as any mass murder since the Holocaust, but Biden sits on his hands. As for the Afghan resistance? It now regroups in the Panjshir Valley while the White House hints at offering a multibillion-dollar incentive package to the Taliban in exchange for releasing hostages.
When it comes to hostages, perhaps there are some similarities. The Iran hostage crisis ended Carter’s dreams of a second term. The Afghanistan hostage crisis, with hundreds of Americans left behind, will now become Biden’s legacy. Carter sought to rescue American hostages. Ross Wilson, the acting ambassador in Kabul, simply tells the Americans there it is their own fault.
Make no mistake: I am no fan of Carter. His naive progressivism enabled dictators like Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe and Somalia’s Siad Barre. It diminished America on the world stage. But Carter also held deep convictions and sought to be true to them. His advisers did not hesitate to present him with cold, hard facts, and he listened to reality. Biden is the opposite. His career shows that he pivots on a whim and lets the wind and ego guide his policy rather than principle. Pundits may liken the two, but Biden is no Carter. Biden can’t even plagiarize him right.
Michael Rubin (@Mrubin1971) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential. He is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
