In an ideal world, ex-presidents would quietly fade away; maybe write those memoirs, hit the lecture circuit, dabble in some charity work, and whack a few golf balls around. Every now and then, we’d drag them out for a photo op or an interview.
Unfortunately, Jimmy Carter has no intention of going out with such grace.
Nearly three decades removed from his malaise-ridden presidency, Carter just can’t seem to help himself when it comes to criticizing the world’s state of affairs and President Bush. He put his foot in his mouth back in May when commented on Bush’s foreign policy: "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. When called out on his remarks, Carter tried to cover by saying that “worst” was used in the context of comparing the Bush and Nixon administrations.
Please. As loony as he sounds at times, Carter must still know how to properly use the comparative and superlative forms of an adjective. And how does he explain the “history” part – did he mean the history of that particular interview? One can excuse a contextual slip of the tongue, but it’s tough to explain away two. Perhaps he regrets letting out his internal monologue, but Carter clearly believed what he said.
In his latest outburst, Carter blasted the U.S., Britain and European Union for taking sides in the Palestinian power struggle, which culminated in this week’s clash in Gaza. Addressing a conference of Irish human rights advocates, he said that Hamas, in addition to winning a fair election that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian Authority, had proven itself to be better organized in political and military clashes with the Fatah movement of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. He added that Hamas had been “shrewd in selecting candidates” and that “superior skills and discipline” had resulted in the Gaza takeover.
And sure, Benito Mussolini was a warmongering dictator - but give him credit for getting those trains to run on time!
Carter took his tired brand of moral equivalency to new heights when he added, "this effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples now is a step in the wrong direction. All efforts of the international community should be to reconcile the two, but there's no effort from the outside to bring the two together."
As much as Carter seems determined to give the Palestinians a free pass on any self-inflicted misery, the division he decries is hardly of external design. There are distinct philosophical differences between Fatah and Hamas, with the former at least making an effort to acknowledge Israeli interests. Hamas harbors no such intention. (Perhaps we should be thankful that Carter has yet to blame the West for the division between Shiite and Sunni.)
And it is ludicrous to suggest, as Carter does, that both parties should get equal amounts of support for the sake of Palestinian unity. When faced with a choice that’s essentially the lesser of two evils, it only makes sense to pick the side not fanatically intent on destroying its neighbor.
Using Carter’s logic, we should have cut checks to both the Northern Alliance and Taliban, lest we “divide” the Afghan people.
A sad relic of an era most would rather forget, Carter clings to a myopic sense of neutrality that makes no distinction between aggressor and defender – the same philosophy that engendered the milquetoast foreign policy of his administration. What makes him dangerous thirty years later is that he, as a Nobel Prize laureate and mediator of the Camp David Accords, still has some clout on the international stage, especially when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict. As long as he has a venue for mouthing off, Carter will find a sympathetic ear.
Which means it is high time he invested in a nice set of clubs.