[ad_1]
Policy
/
Questions and answers
/
October 1, 2024
In the interviews with him The Nation Over the years, the former president has outlined a foreign policy approach that respects Palestinian rights and points the way toward peace.
Jimmy Carter in Washington on November 28, 2006.
(Michael Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Jimmy Carter turned 100 today, making him the oldest president ever. And in Carter’s case, age and wisdom come together.
While his presidency, which began almost five decades ago, was full of ups and downs, his post-presidency was characterized by bold truth-telling that, while often controversial, placed him on the right side of history.
Current number
Carter’s wisdom has been on display in recent months, as he has indicated that he intends to cast an enthusiastic vote for Kamala Harris to become the first woman and only the second black American to serve as president.
While previous presidents have been cautious about choosing their successors and the issues that successors will have to grapple with, Carter has long waded into the big debates. And with it the upsetting of the status quo.
In 2016, for example, he voted for Senator Bernie Sanders, and in recent years has been outspoken about the need for progressive initiatives like single-payer Medicare for All.
Carter’s boldest advocate, of course, has been the US government’s new approach to the Middle East—an approach that respects the need for the United States to be an honest player in a region where it has done more than anyone else. president to promote peace.
Since Carter left the White House in 1981, successive presidents have gotten more wrong than right in a region where the threat of all-out war is growing and where Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip has killed more than 40,000 Palestinians — most of them women. and children – since the Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023. I have had the opportunity to interview former President Carter several times over the years. In recognition of his 100th birthday and his wisdom, here is an excerpt from a 2007 interview in which we discussed his 2006 book, Palestine peace, not apartheidand Jonathan Demme’s 2007 documentary, Jimmy Carter is a plain manwhich described his controversial tour in the name of the book.
— John Nichols
John Nichols: At the beginning of the documentary, you describe American media coverage of the Middle East as “disgusting” and completely lacking in objectivity. Did you see yourself fighting the media on the book tour?
Jimmy Carter: I presented a point of view that the American media rarely has the opportunity to cover. It would be almost inconceivable that any member of the House or Senate, Republican or Democrat, or any person campaigning for president, Republican or Democrat, would make the statements I made about the plight of the Palestinians or Israel in 1967. bordering on modifications or things like that. So this was a new opportunity for them to cover the Middle East issue from a completely – I would say almost unprecedented – perspective.
JN: Do you think it has moved the political debate forward?
JC: Oh, no. It would be amazing if any presidential candidate would mention it—even if they were serious about these issues.
JN: It is now accepted that a former president, if he is willing to put up with it, will say bold things about the Middle East, but presidential candidates are not. Isn’t this our crisis?
JC: That was one of the reasons I wrote the book—and it’s the reason I continue to talk about these issues. I saw a complete lack of any kind of substantive discussion. For six years, seven years now, there has not been a single day of meaningful negotiations between Israel and Syria or the Palestinians. I wanted to create some movement in the peace process and bring the issue to the fore. By the way, in other countries – I have recently visited Ireland, England and other European countries – there is quite a heated debate. But here, zero.
JN: You entered the national political consciousness in 1975 and 1976 as “the man from the plains,” a peanut farmer with few ties to Washington who ran an outsider campaign. Can you run successfully in the presidential election today – the same background, the same scenario?
JC: Not. It wouldn’t be possible. First of all, I had no money in 1975 and ’76. Basically, we ran a campaign with my family. We campaigned seven times a day in different places. We didn’t even have enough money to stay in a hotel or motel. Then President Ford and I both ran on only the $1 per person fund in the general election. We did not receive consent for the general election. This technique, that situation is now completely gone.
JN: Has winning the presidency freed you up as an outsider to try new approaches to the Middle East?
JC: Definitely. There were two things: I didn’t owe anyone anything when I took office, so I could speak freely. I was free to act. The other part of it was that I wasn’t as concerned with the question of what do you do if you get re-elected? And I have to say that I have neglected this part of my political career.
JN: You didn’t calculate carefully enough.
JC: Not. I really thought that the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt would be enough to solidify my political support. But there are so many nuances to this question that it didn’t work out that way. However, Israel and Egypt remain at peace. This is comforting and I hope to send a good message to the next president. An American president can advance the peace process and achieve meaningful progress. It is needed – now more than ever.
Can we count on you?
In the next election, the fate of our democracy and our basic civil rights will be on the ballot. The conservative architects of Project 2025 seek to institutionalize Donald Trump’s authoritarian vision at all levels of government should he win.
We have seen events that fill us with fear and cautious optimism—all the while, The Nation he was a bulwark against misinformation and an advocate for bold, principled viewpoints. Our dedicated writers interview Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders, unpack JD Vance’s shallow right-wing populist appeals, and discuss the path to Democratic victory in November.
Stories like this and the one you have just read are vital at this critical juncture in our country’s history. Now more than ever, we need clear-eyed and in-depth independent journalism to make sense of the headlines and sort fact from fiction. Donate today and join our 160-year legacy of speaking truth to power and raising the voices of local advocates.
In 2024, which will likely be the defining election of our lifetimes, we need your support to continue delivering the insightful journalism you rely on.
Thanks,
The editors The Nation