A conversation with presidential biographers Jonathan Alter and Kai Bird.

Jimmy Carter has long been regarded as one of the least efficient modern presidents in the United States-blamed for failing to control inflation, resolve the energy crisis, or release the American hostages in Tehran. His disastrous re-election in 1980 laid the foundation for his pessimistic narrative. 

But this negative evaluation is beginning to change. Recently, Washington Monthly Special Editor Timothy Noah hosted a dialogue between Jonathan Ort and Kay Bird, the two reporters who have just published the main biography of the 39th President of the United States. Everyone approached Carter from a different angle, but all came to a similar conclusion: Jimmy Carter was seriously underestimated. 

Both Alt and Bird thought Carter was weak or lost in the weeds, as he is often portrayed. Carter has brought more positive changes to the Middle East than any president in the past few decades or later; with the exception of the LBJ, he has signed more legislation than any post-World War II president; and warned of the dangers of climate change before the threat appeared. . Carter's human rights policy played a huge role in the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it was largely untrusted—perhaps more important than any policy formulated by his successor Ronald Reagan.

The following is the edited transcript. We promise to provide you with fascinating and informative readings, knowing that you will almost certainly not know some recent history as you think-assuming you remember it.

Timothy Noah: Today I am very happy to introduce two old friends, Jonathan Ort and Kay Bird, to re-evaluate Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Oort and Bird are the authors of Carter's two recent biographies, "His Best" and "Outlier". In these two biographies, each of them advocates reconsidering the government of the former president. Carter is 97 years old, which makes him the oldest former president in history. His wife Rosalyn is 94 years old.

As it happens, the late 1970s was the first time I met Jon and Kai. Solemnly declare that Jon and I met in the freshman year of college, and Kay and I met in 1979 when we were summer interns at The Nation. Kay is my boss. Later, I succeeded Jon as the editor of the Washington Monthly. After he and his wife Susan moved to Washington, D.C., Kay and I reconnected 

I'm going to turn this topic to Jon and Kay now, let Jon start. 

Jonathan Alter: For me, one of the most enjoyable parts of [this experience] was getting to know Kay. We met at the Carter Center weekend in 2016. In my opinion, [we] are involved in basically the same larger project, which is to get the country to re-evaluate Jimmy Carter, not just as president, but as a person. I think we have made some progress in this regard. 

I think the time since he stepped down as president 40 years ago is roughly the same as the time it took to reassess Harry Truman's legacy. Truman stepped down in 1953 and was a very unpopular president. When David McCullough's book (1992) was published, it began true revisionism. I don't think Carter's level will be exactly the same as Truman's level, but the reassessment is in progress, and it should have been done long ago. 

The Carter administration puts human rights first. This is something that no previous presidents have done. This is a very important thing. As Larry Eagleberg admitted, as Colin Powell admitted, it helped lead to the end of the Cold War. When Vaclav Havel is interviewed, he will describe how important it is to let the morale of dissidents know that they have a friend of the President of the United States. There have been many human rights organizations, not only in the Soviet Union, but also in many other countries. When you talk to the people who founded these organizations, they mentioned Carter.

There is a story about the Soviet prisoner of conscience. Carter was released in a prisoner exchange. He came to Plains' church with him. When they were in the church, he was sitting next to Rosalyn. Here is a small photo of Jimmy Carter that he has kept in prison. 

In 1981, four American presidents (from left): Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter toast at the funeral of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. (National Archives)

JA: So ideas have power. It is important to remember this, even after the war in Afghanistan. You heard some talk about human rights there, but after 20 years in Afghanistan, everyone is now saying, "Well, we can't, we can't solve all human rights issues." Carter would agree with this. This is a very pragmatic policy and situational policy. 

This means that he did what he could, and that's a lot, especially in Latin America. In the 10 years since Carter became president, Latin America has changed from a predominantly authoritarian to a predominantly democratic. This is not all due to him, but he deserves some honor for it. There are still many more democracies in the world than there were in 1980. This is because people who were inspired by Jimmy Carter put a lot of effort in an alarming number of situations.

Kebbard: I agree with that. Human rights is a major achievement of Carter. He took the principle of human rights as the cornerstone of US foreign policy, and none of his successors could abandon this principle or completely ignore it. They talked about some hypocrisy and impractical aspects of the policy, but you can't ignore it. I made this argument in my biography that human rights, discussions about human rights, and concerns about dissidents in the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Poland-all of these have far exceeded Ronald’s role in weakening the Soviet empire in Eastern Europe. · Anything Reagan did by increasing the defense budget or threatening Star Wars. The Soviet Union is a weak enemy, not a strong enemy. It is falling apart, and with that comes Carter talking about human rights. As Jon said, thought is powerful, and this thought is still powerful. It did make a great contribution to the fall of the Berlin Wall and people's seizure of power on the streets. Hope to have personal freedom. This is partly due to Jimmy Carter.

TN: The Carters recently celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary in their hometown of Plains, Georgia. You are all present. What is it like and what have you learned?

JA: They are the longest married presidential couple in American history. They have been married for longer than Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, and everyone thinks this is some kind of world record. They actually met three days after Rosalyn was born, almost exactly 94 years ago, when Jimmy's mother Lilian Carter took her nearly three-year-old son to see the baby she had just given birth on the street. However, in the next 20 years, they did not really meet. When he was at the Naval Academy, they began to go out. 

What really impressed me about a pleasant wedding anniversary is how democratic it is. This is in stark contrast to Obama’s 60th birthday party. Not just because, you know, they didn't remove close assistants from the list. Yes, Garth Brooks went, but it was not that kind of incident. This is also a repair to an old injury, because Bill and Hillary Clinton, who did not get along well with the Carters, are here, and Nancy Pelosi is also here. This lasting picture came to my mind: [Pelosi] walked up to Carter in a wheelchair, put his hands on either side of his face, looked at him hard for a long time, you know she was thinking, " This is the last time it's time to see Jimmy Carter." So it has a bitterness. 

When Carter graduated from the Naval Academy in 1946, he was with his fiancé Rosalyn (left) and mother Lillian Carter (right). (National Archives)

They divided us into Plains High School classrooms so that the gathering was intimate before we joined a larger group of people in the school auditorium. In my classroom, from Lucy Johnson and Sam Donaldson to Rosalind’s hairdresser and a young Georgia researcher, they became friends because they liked his natural research. It really gives you an idea of ​​their range of interests, and the fact that they — I won’t describe Jimmy Carter as humble; I don’t think any politician is humble — but his situation and their lifestyle Humility is amazing.

KB: Jon, just want to talk about this topic. In my classroom, I am in front of a billionaire, and there is his fly fishing partner in the room. This family from Pennsylvania, during his presidency, he occasionally visited and went fly fishing together. The billionaire explained to me rather shyly that the Fly Fisherman couple in Pennsylvania are Trumpists-they voted for Trump!

JA: Fly fishermen run a legendary cabin in Pennsylvania. [Carter went there] The 1980 conference had just ended. This is also the location of a story Paul Walker told me. I interviewed him shortly before his death. He said that Carter was still in the same fishing lodge after a few years as president. Volcker said, "If I let you lose the presidency, I'm sorry," because, you know , He raised the interest rate, which was as high as 19%. How was Carter supposed to get reelected when interest rates were so high? When inflation was defeated, Reagan was in power and won all the honors. Arguably, Volcker elected and reelected Ronald Reagan. But Carter turned to Volcker, he smiled and said, "There are many factors, Paul."

KB: Of course Volcker is there. Another factor is that he is treated by the media. One of the reasons Carter was so misunderstood was that, alas, the media he got at the time, especially the Washington Post, [it] kind of mocked his Southern descent—his funny accent, his dress, his manners, his Talk to his staff from Georgia. Sally Quinn, especially the queen of the fashion sector at the time, married [edit] Ben Bradlee-just ruthlessly pursuing Chief of Staff Hamilton Jordan and [Press Secretary] Jody Powell.

When the family went on vacation in Wyoming in 1978, Jimmy Carter was fly fishing in the Grand Teton area. (National Archives)

JA: Kai is absolutely correct on this point. I was really surprised to see the tone of the report, which affected me at the time. I came to the conclusion that Carter was caused by Watergate, not by Watergate. He never would have been elected president without Watergate. He started running for a few months after Nixon resigned. He was Nixon’s antidote. He said, "I will never lie to you", "We need a government as good as the people." He [later] said that he got better news than he deserved in 1976 because he matched it perfectly This moment. However, when he took office, the Washington press corps was determined to prove that he was just another Nixon, and anyone in that position was a corrupt person.

KB: Remember the Peanuts door? It turned into a small scandal with nothing to do. However, the Washington Press Corps continued to hunt down, believing that they [can] prove that Jimmy Carter illegally used the funds from the peanut warehouse during the campaign. It is young journalists like us who always want to be Woodward and Bernstein.

JA: In the summer of 1978, I interned in Jim Fallow's office. He is less than 30 years old. He was Carter's first chief speechwriter, which allowed me to enter the entire Washington monthly circle, changed my life, and got to know Jim. Later that year, Jim wrote an extremely critical article for The Atlantic Monthly. I think you and I have different opinions on this article. This article is called "President without Passion". Has a great influence, and--

TN: I want to insert a great joke from Jim here-he may regret saying it: "Being Jimmy Carter's chief speechwriter is like being a tap dance coach for FDR."

JA: Yes, that is a great line. 

TN: Is this a fair comment?

JA: Let's put it this way. In terms of their importance in the Carter White House, the level of speech writers was so low that I was able to write a later article, I think it was for the monthly magazine, entitled "I am a teenager "Presidential Speech Writer". They would let me write a speech for Carter, and Carter would not give a speech, otherwise he would kill the lines. I wrote a speech he gave at the Tobacco Warehouse in North Carolina, and he finally said: "We want to make smoking safer than it is now." He is just not good at prepared speeches. He doesn't value a prepared speech; he doesn't value rhetoric. Both Kay and I used the diary of this good man named Jerry Doolittle. I met him that summer. He is a prank writer and speech writer. Jerry was very sour in his diary about Carter's speech that he wrote at the same time. This hurt Carter, especially in stark contrast with Reagan, who performed so well. His delivery is terrible. He has no ears for language. He eliminated anything that might be considered Sorensenian in his rhetoric. 

I remember that summer Jim said to me: "This is the line you need to use." We must stop inflation, and we must do it now. "" This is Carter's speech idea. 

I was so disappointed in Carter that I supported Ted Kennedy in the 1980 [primary election]. Later, [I] thought this was a very stupid thing and put this very good but imperfect president in his party and let him accept this challenge. I am ashamed of doing this. 

I didn't really think of him until I was in a book club in New York in 2014. We were reading Lawrence Wright's wonderful book "Thirteen Days in September" about Camp David. Someone in our group knew Carter, knew his grandson Jason, and brought [Carter] to our book group. This person is 90 years old [and] published a wonderful analysis, not only about Middle Eastern politics, but also right A travel horizon of Middle Eastern politics. While reading that book, I realized that this was an art performance by Camp David. This is one of the greatest diplomatic achievements in American history. So for this person, there is more than "a mediocre president, a great former president". 

My editor at Simon and Schuster is the late Alice Mayhew, she is Carter's editor. So when I mentioned it to her, she said: "You have to do this. No one has written his biography." I don't know Kay, there was a little bit before Kay started, and there was this huge in the melee line Hole. 

[Editor's note: Carter's third major book (President Carter: The Years in the White House) will be published in 2018. The author is Stewart Eisenstadt, Carter's internal affairs adviser. ]

In the summer of 2015, one day when I was reading documents at the Carter Library, MSNBC sent me a text message, and they said, “Trump is announcing his candidacy. Go to the studio [and] analyze this man who came down from the escalator. "So I did. I know this will be a truly abominable change in our national lives. I don't know he will become president. But when I went back to the library, I only remembered an overwhelming sense of relief and went back to learn Carter. He is my four-year vacation from Trump. Anytime Trump's poison affects me, I will withdraw to Carter's side. This really helps to motivate me, because Carter is not Trump in many ways.

TN: I understand, Kai, your attitude towards [Fallows influential Atlantic article "The Passionless Presidency"] in the book is more severe than Jon. Fallows believes that Carter lacks the big and visionary mentality necessary to lead the country. 

KB: I used a whole chapter to introduce Jim Fallows. His Atlantic prose was the first prose in the magazine's long career and was regarded by the Carter White House as the thorn behind it. I think this is an interesting turning point. 

I also think Fallows's work is a bit of a second grade. Attempt to psychologicalize Carter. Of course, the one thing people remember from that article is the tennis court. In Fallow's report, the president paid so much attention to detail that he [even] micro-managed the schedule of the White House tennis courts. When you study it in depth, you will find that there is a misunderstanding, it is a bit complicated, and Carter did not spend time managing the schedule of the tennis court. But this is one of the stories about Jimmy Carter that most Americans remember.

TN: What about the broader criticism that Carter is all trees and no forests? [Fallows] may even have talked about [Isaiah Berlin's article] "Hedgehog and Fox". 

[Editor's note: "The Ruthless President" did not mention the article in Berlin, although some people later compared Carter to a fox in Berlin and knew many things. His successor Ronald Reagan knew one more important thing than a hedgehog in Berlin. ]

JA: That was wrong, Tim. I respect Jim, but this kind of analysis cannot withstand scrutiny. In Isaiah Berlin’s statement, Carter is very much like a hedgehog. He has many great ideas, mainly about peace, and these ideas combine many of his ways of treating the world. But he also paid great attention to details, so this was used as an attack on him. 

Indeed, sometimes, especially when he is governor, he will go deep into some inefficient levels of detail and useless micro-management. [But] he didn't do that much as president. What he did was very concerned about the legislative and diplomatic details. [Without that,] He will never have the Camp David agreement, he will never have the Panama Canal Treaty to prevent a major war in Central America, and he may not normalize with China-instead of writing a chapter in the Fallows incident , I devoted a chapter to discussing normalization with China. Carter was correct in the details of the negotiations. 

We will never have the Alaska Land Act, which doubles the size of the National Park Service. Carter knelt on the map on the floor of the Oval Office, when Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska walked in and tried to coax him and told him: "If you exclude these areas," Carter said, "No, those are The source here, there is habitat." In a limousine returning to Capitol Hill, Stevens said to an assistant: "The son of a bitch knows my state as much as I do." If he doesn't. If you do, the bill will be destroyed and the developer will succeed.

KB: Jon and I agree that Carter's attention to detail is a good thing, especially during Trump's presidency, there was no attention to detail. This is the president we want. Get up at 5:30 in the morning and arrive at the Oval Office at 6:30. I spend 12 hours a day reading the 200- and 300-page memo, checking the details, and trying to figure out what is the right thing to do.

JA: I think what Kai does to him is that he allows his efforts to get the right answer out of politics. He didn't think he was a politician, it really hurt him. I think he was a political failure because he lost, but it was actually a visionary success. 

But some of his failures in politics are because if he can—and Jim did point it out in that famous Atlantic article—this assumption is that if you can get the correct answer, everyone else will think it is correct. Answer and go with him. So, for example, regarding the tax reform he promised during the campaign, he sat down to study the tax law, he got up at 5:30 in the morning, he knew everything about the tax law and what was wrong with it. Then he dropped a reform bill. He used to convey information to Congress through messages, and he received a lot of information because he was interested in many different issues and had more legislation approved than any president since World War II—including in recent years—with the exception of Lin Den Johnson. He got more bills than Clinton and Obama got in eight years, much more than any Republican. So every other week there is a bill signed, 14 major environmental legislation, and the media mostly ignore these. 

But he lost in some big companies, and he also lost in tax reform, because he just threw it on them. [Democratic Senator] Russell Long later said, "He didn't consult me ​​when writing this bill, so why should I consult him when I tear it up?"

In 1978, after successfully signing the Panama Canal Treaty, President Carter was smiling. (National Archives)

TN: Kay, do you agree that Carter did a bad job in the political part of his job?

KB: Well, sometimes-the tax bill is a good example. Another example is dealing with Ted Kennedy on the Medicare Act. Carter obviously, in his view, Ted is just looking for a workable problem, challenging the nomination of the current president, and health care is Kennedy's personal big problem. Both politicians supported the concept of a national health insurance plan, while Carter publicly supported Kennedy's bill. But once he entered the White House, he was also a small-town fiscal conservative, and he was worried about the federal budget deficit. I think this is wrong because he doesn't appreciate Keynes enough. He mistakenly believed that the federal budget deficit was fueling inflation, but it was actually commodity prices, rising oil, Arab oil boycotts, and the Iranian revolution. This is what fuels inflation. 

Because of this prejudice against budget deficits, [Carter] told Kennedy that he would not be able to support his bill until his second term. At the same time, “how about making a compromise, we will only agree to pass the nation’s disastrous health Insurance, so that no American family would spend more than $5,000 on a health accident?" Kennedy refused this, Carter refused to compromise. In retrospect, I think, Jon, you are right-if he is politically smart, he will let Kennedy take the road and support his bill, when it doesn’t get the votes Carter thinks is lacking in the Senate, Kennedy’s The bill would fail, and then he could have got the universally disastrous health bill. 

Carter signed the Energy Act of 1978, which promoted energy conservation and renewable energy in response to the 1973 crisis. (National Archives)

But he didn't think so. He just thought, "This is a stupid bill, I want to submit a smart bill", but we didn't get anything. Our national health insurance was delayed for 40 years. We didn't understand until Obama, and only partially.

JA: A few things surprised me. Ted Kennedy's bill is not a single payer. Now there is the assumption that for progressives, "Oh, if only we could have [Kennedy Act]." [Kennedy's] Bill did not even vote-Carter was right on this point-withdraw from the committee , Not to mention winning on the court, and it is not a single payer. So some people objected. Carter initially proposed an incremental bill, and Kennedy was very disdainful of such incrementalism. This is what we did under Clinton, first of all, the child health [care bill]. 

Finally, Carter proposed his own bill, which is a very good bill, a bit beyond the scope of Obamacare, he has the support of all key committee chairs in the House of Representatives and the Senate. It could have been passed, but Kennedy, who had such authority on this issue, was so proud that he refused. 

KB: Kennedy is not very good in our book, is he?

JA: No. Carter and Kennedy have been like oil and water since they first met. In Kennedy's memoirs, he was very harsh on Carter. In recent years, Carter has tried to be more kind to Kennedy. He admitted that it was wrong not to put Archibald Cox on the appeal judge's bench as Kennedy wanted. [This is] Carter is very stingy not to do this.

KB: This is a cultural disconnect, Southerners and Massachusetts liberals. They just speak two different languages, and they both despise each other. Kennedy didn't really understand where Carter came from and didn't believe in his liberal qualifications. Carter thought Kennedy was the son of a privileged millionaire, and he thought he was destined to become president. 

JA: Carter has never been welcomed by other politicians. Even when he was in the National Governors Association, he would want the governor, and when they met in sunny weather, he would want them to go out to do community service. The governors were like, "We want to go to the swimming pool. Why did Governor Carter let us do this community service, or let us consider these resolutions that will only bring political problems to our country?" 

President Carter gave a speech on the energy crisis in 1979, which was later called the "discomfort speech." (National Archives)

He was never a policeman. He was not so self-righteous and ethical as some people thought in retrospect—he was a faithful believer in the separation of church and state, and was extremely tolerant of the bad behavior of the staff, so he did not post that on his body. Some people think of the ass. But he is all business. That photograph of him standing apart, right after Obama was elected, [with] Obama and the Bushes and Clinton yukking it up and Carter standing aside from them—Kai and I both agree that was really accurate. Carter himself admitted this, and The two presidents, I will not say which one they are, confirms this. Carter is just indifferent. When you check his call records to members of Congress, he will dutifully call to lobby, but the call will last for one minute and ten seconds. There is no time to chat, he just wants to get to the point.

KB: Jon, this brings me to a question that leads the conversation to the art and craft of biography. What is the most valuable source of your book? How valuable is your interview with Carter himself?

JA: Honestly, I don't think they are very valuable.

KB: I have to say, mine is very disappointing. I got some colors, but in my interview with him, he was very focused on his work at the Carter Center—projects in Africa or whatever—he would always look at his watch. He cares about his historical records, but he is bored with familiar problems, you show him a document, it will not trigger memory. He is not a storyteller.

JA: I agree with that. When I went to his home in Pingyuan, I did achieve greater success. When I interviewed him in his Atlanta office, his secretary would arrive one hour after the interview started, and the old naval officer was extremely impatient with being late. So I learned much less from these interviews. But when I go to his house, we can talk longer.

Speaking of his current job-his president, I learned more from him. But I think we all agree that in some respects his post-presidential term is overestimated because he does not have the power to change his life as he did when he was president.

KB: Right. I also think that Doug Brinkley wrote an entire book about his post-employment.

JA: One more thing, in the interview. I interviewed 260 people, and I did find that almost everyone told me something interesting. You won't get more than one, but there will be something interesting and unusual that I always need to check, but this takes me in a new direction.

It is clear from my report that Jimmy Carter is living an epic American life. This is an extraordinary human story. When he was president, some people thought he was a bit boring, partly because of the way he spoke and the technocratic language he sometimes used. The energy crisis is hardly as sexy as the Civil Rights Movement, and he is not as compelling as Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon. But when you look at the whole of his life, not only his achievements, but also his complexity as a person, I think none of us are capable—I shouldn’t speak for you, Kay , But I don’t think it’s impossible to write an authoritative biography for him. His character is too complicated. 

We haven't really talked about him as a person, but this assumption that he is a weak character is far from the truth. He is a stubborn bastard. It's not necessarily a bad thing-people don't hate working for him. He is not Andrew Cuomo. But when he bores you with those steely blue eyes, you know you are in trouble. He is a charming combination of his disciplined father and compassionate mother, albeit often detached. She left so often that he called the desk where she would leave instructions "Mom." Because she is not at home, she often takes care of black patients as a nurse.

I was also completely fascinated by the southern environment. I had to spend a lot of time peeling off the icing he put on it. He didn't lie about his early years, but he coated it with sugar. He lives in one of the humblest areas in the county. Sheriff, Sheriff [Fred] Chappell, Carter called him a friend, Martin Luther King called him "the despicable man in the world." [King spent some time in a prison under the jurisdiction of Chappell. ] 

I began to think that Carter lived for three centuries. He was born in 1924, but it may also be in the 19th century because they have no running water or electricity, and no mechanized agricultural equipment. He is the president of the 20th century. Resolution of conflicts, promotion of democracy, global health-these are the frontier issues of the 21st century. In the first 20 years of the 21st century, Carter has been closely involved. Therefore, I think that the scope of this life has not been fully valued.

I think [you] explained to the readers a little more than I did how useful Carter's [published] diaries are, which he kept religiously when he was president. They are really good.

KB: Of course. I rely more on diaries and other archives than interviews, but my main complaint and disappointment, I believe you, is that we all requested access to the complete diary, but we did not get it. We got a little bit, but there are 5,000 pages, and he only published 20% of them in his 2010 book.

JA: Three or four times, I asked for something that was not in the diary. For example, I want the real-time reaction of the King of Iran when he died. They provided me with excerpts from the unpublished diary. There are several other [instances], I asked for a complete entry from that day, and they gave me, in fact, the [published] diary was not whitewashed. Did not find that he took out something shameful from the diary. I am very disappointed that he did not give me his diary after leaving office. 

TN: Let me introduce a few topics that I would love to see you discuss. The first is economic deregulation. The other is the Iranian Revolution. [Carter] Do you have any retrospective regrets about any of these topics?

KB: Well, the Iranian revolution, yes, he has regrets. I wrote a lot of articles about the Iranian Revolution. I think this is really an organic thing, it will happen, Carter can do nothing to save the Pahlavi regime. It was falling apart and became very unpopular in the mid-1970s. Just like the situation in Afghanistan that we have witnessed, things are moving very fast. There is nothing he can do to save the king.

I think one of his regrets for Iran is that he offered political asylum to the king. He resisted for months and months. David Rockefeller and John McIlroy-the subject of my first biography-and [Henry] Kissinger formed this formal lobbying operation, which they called "Project Alpha." They allocated a budget for this, they hired a publicist, they set up a calendar, everyone would contact at least one senior Carter government official every week, if not the president, lobby the king to be accepted. Carter just resisted, as you can see in his diary. He worried that if he did, maybe the passion on the streets of Tehran would be so so that the embassy might be attacked and the hostages would be taken. Of course, he is right. 

He finally gave up in late October 1979. A few days later, the embassy was taken over. We had 444 hostages. This was a heavy blow to his chances of re-election.

JA: Deregulation soon. He did not participate in the deregulation of Wall Street in any important way. This is the deregulation of the aviation industry. He and Ted Kennedy and [and] the trucking industry, I think, established a just-in-time delivery system, which is one of the foundations of today's economy. There are also railway rates-his quirks led him to work in a series of industries, he has some very smart people working for him, they did a lot of work for the economic success of the 80s, but actually did not cause any harm. He did not perform any deregulation of health and safety.

Both Kay and I mentioned many minor examples. They loosened controls on the beer industry and allowed small breweries. But I don’t think that, apart from a few Carter’s assistants, no one toasted Jimmy Carter when they raised their micro-brewed beer. But they should.

TN: The deregulation of the trucking industry has caused great harm to truck drivers. 

JA: Teamsters don’t like it, but—

KB: The same goes for deregulation in the aviation industry. It weakened the unions serving Pan American Airlines and Global Airlines and the major airlines. They were all put aside and the airlines that suddenly appeared hired non-union workers. This is a reform that allows the middle class in the United States to fly by air for the first time because fares are cheaper, there are more choices, and there are more routes. So people like Ralph Nader think this is a huge boon for consumers. But the downside is that it actually weakens part of the traditional Democratic constituency union. This is not only happening in the aviation industry, but as you pointed out, it's happening in the trucking and railway industries. 

[Editor’s note: For more information on the consequences of deregulation of airlines and railroads, see Phillip Longman and Lina Khan’s "Terminal Sickness" (in our March/April 2012 issue) and "Amtrak Joe Versus the Modern Robber Barons" by Phillip Longman (in this issue)]

TN: This is part of the repositioning of liberalism from employee to consumer. Do you agree, Jon?

JA: Coincidentally, I talked to Ralph [Nader] for the first time yesterday. We talked about Carter. 

Ralph was very disappointed with Carter’s presidency, even though he agreed with Esther Peterson’s view that Carter was the [most consumer-friendly president] he had experienced as an adult. We talked about the failure of [creating] a consumer protection agency, which was an important priority for Nader, and in my opinion, it was the Washington Post who dispelled a group of liberals when they published an editorial against it. [Nader] thought Carter could have argued more violently about this.

I don't think it is the deregulation itself, it usually represents the consumer, causing this shift [focus from employees to consumers]. I think more is that Carter never really paid attention to the issue of deindustrialization, that is, what will replace the Rust Belt as the engine of the American economy.

The same thing happened to Iran. When the king began to falter, Carter failed to apply his normal attention to detail to Iran. He has a lot to do. He is planning a historic visit to Deng Xiaoping. This is the end of autumn and winter of 1978, and the beginning of 1979. [The Camp David Agreement] fell apart. This is a little-known fact. After they left Camp David, the entire transaction fell apart, and Carter had to travel to the Middle East in early 1979 to put the whole thing back together with chewing gum, packing thread, and masking tape. 

So he has that, he has China. Then came the resistance to Bella Abzug. Carter hired her to manage the women's committee. She used her habitat to attack the Carter government. So they decided to fire her. The minutes of the cabinet meeting during the week that the king left power, they were mainly talking about Bella Abzug. 

They really don't understand. Many people think that "Shia" is pronounced "shit", and even Walter Mundell doesn't know what Ayatollah is. Therefore, people have an extreme lack of understanding of what is happening in that part of the world. Then, in order to understand some of the things Kay mentioned, Carter faced all the pressure to let the king in. Once he said, "Fuck the king." He really resisted McIlroy and Kissinger and everyone who pressed him. I really don’t believe he would say that, but when I interviewed [Carter Defense Secretary] Harold Brown, I said, “Did he really say'Fuck the King'?” Then he said, “Yes Yes, I was surprised to hear these words from his mouth." 

But then in October 1979, [Rockefeller] made a new argument that the king had cancer and he must be allowed in for humanitarian reasons. But this is a scam, and the details of the scam [only] came out recently. Basically, they pulled the wool into Carter's eyes and made him look as if the king exiled in Mexico could not treat cancer in Mexico, but only in the United States. So they let him in. As Kay said, only a few days later, the student militants occupied the embassy.

TN: I always thought that the pressure to get the king in happened after he became a cancer patient. Is it actually before this?

KB: Yes, from the moment he was in exile, from the moment Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran and the king left, Kissinger, Rockefeller, and McCloy were lobbying Carter to give [king] politics shelter. 

TN: What are their arguments?

KB: We must support this friend. If people see us abandon him, this will send a message to our allies that we are unreliable. This is Henry Kissinger's standard argument about alliances. Carter immediately saw through it as meaningless. He understands that this is not the right way. He agrees only because-the medical information Jon is referring to is completely wrong. [King] could have received the same treatment, or in fact, he might get better health care in Mexico City than in New York City, because the doctors David Rockefeller arranged for him were not the experts he needed and made one after another mistake.

JA: The doctor is an expert in tropical diseases! 

KB: This is ridiculous. 

JA: This is really a story about [how] celebrities get the worst medical care.

Kay’s attitude towards [National Security Advisor Zbigniew] Brzezinski in his book is much stronger than mine. When I interviewed Kissinger and Brzezinski, I was really shocked by the weakness of their argument: Carter could have supported the king and let him use his army, as long as he urged him to shoot his own people. This is a kind of paternalistic nonsense argument. The king knew what was happening. He told a visitor: "Look, the difference between a monarch and a tyrant is that the monarch does not shoot his own people." He has already shot some of them in a rebellion. He said that if I start shooting them on one street a week, they will appear on the next street next week.

TN: What is the difference between the two of you about Brzezinski? Because your evaluation of [him] is not very high. Is it about Brzezinski himself or about Brzezinski's influence on the White House?

President Carter met with the King of Iran during his visit to Tehran in 1977, and he will flee the country after being overthrown in the Iranian Revolution about a year ago. (National Archives)

KB: No, I am more strict with Brzezinski.

During the transition period after the 1976 election, Carter was trying to arrange his appointment, and Richard Holbrooke called him. Holbrook has been advising him on changes in his foreign policy during the campaign. Carter said, "I am considering appointing Brzezinski as national security adviser and Cyvans as secretary of state." And there's a long pause, and Holbrooke says, “Well, Mr. President-elect, I think you could have one or the other but it would be a mistake to have both,” and he explains that they have two different worldviews. 

Brzezinski is essentially a Polish anti-communist who hates Russians. He believes that the Soviet Union is an evil empire, and we are fighting the Soviet Union for generations. He looked at the whole world and the foreign policy of the United States through that prism. Whether it's Cuba, Africa, India or the Middle East, he is thinking, "Well, how can we make this bad for the Russians?" This is his worldview. Cy Vance is more subtle and complex. He learned the lessons of Vietnam. Carter and Vance are on the same wavelength; Carter, although he is a naval officer, he is very opposed to military power or intervention. He found himself agreeing with Vance's worldview. But he told Holbrook in that famous conversation, "Oh, it's okay, I think I can deal with differences of opinion." I think he thought of [Franklin D.] Roosevelt’s cabinet, which was full of people arguing with each other. . 

But as I said, Brzezinski played a very harmful role in the White House. He has been leaking secrets, he is sabotaging and weakening Cy Vance, he has been giving Carter bad advice, and Carter usually rejects these advice. Until last year, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Carter himself was shocked by this and began to give way to Brzezinski, accepting his suggestion instead of Vance's suggestion. This is why Vance left the government and resigned.

I also argued that Carter was wrong in accepting Brzezinski’s advice about [the Soviet invasion] Afghanistan. What we are dealing with here today is the failure of a 20-year war. [But] It didn't start in 2001. It actually started in 1978 and 1979, during the Carter administration, when Brzezinski persuaded Carter to allocate $500,000 and then later. Not much money, but covert operations in Afghanistan to fund the jihadists, and this is still six months before the Soviet invasion. 

Brzezinski regarded the invasion of the Soviet Union as a confirmation of the expansion of the empire, confirming an ever-evolving, aggressive and powerful Soviet system. And all this is wrong. Now we know from the minutes of the Politburo meeting that when they decided to invade, it was a very controversial decision. People who opposed the aggression in the Politburo discovered to their horror that Brezhnev was drunk and old. . 

Looking back now, we know that the Soviet Union is falling apart. It is very weak. What did they invade? They invaded to overthrow a tough Communist Party member and put a more moderate Communist Party member in power, who would be less distant from the prevailing Muslim culture at the time. This is ridiculous! Brzezinski's worldview poisoned everything.

JA: My book also has a lot of content about this aspect. I agree with most of what Kai said just now, but there are a few points. 

In this 1977 photo, Carter is next to National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski (left) and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance (right). They often talk about anti-communism in diplomacy. The role of the policy conflicts. (National Archives)

I decided to look at this, not to wear my news hat, but to try to wear the historian's hat, instead of paying too much attention to the big problems when he was president. This is the way reporters analyze politics and employees. In terms of quarrels and all similar things, but look at it from a historical perspective. In retrospect, the entire forest died in order to document the bureaucratic competition between Brzezinski and Vance. In the end, Carter rejected almost all Brzezinski's ideas and agreed with Vance, as he said to Kay and me. But he likes to have [Brzezinski] around for intellectual stimulation. In the end, territorial disputes and most other employee quarrels and staffing issues became less important to me. I did very little on these issues, but tried to assess the long-term impact of [Carter's] decision. 

Not all these decisions are good. For example, the food embargo they imposed after the Soviet invasion was disastrous, and the Democrats are still paying for it on the farm, as [Bill Clinton's Secretary of Agriculture] Dan Glickman told me 40 years later. Because the Soviets soon began to buy food from other countries, and it made no sense. Obviously, the very popular boycott of the Olympics and the resolution in support of it passed Congress by an overwhelming majority. Over time, this is not very good for the American people. but-

TN: Do you agree that Brzezinski started to break through last year and has greater influence? 

JA: I guess Brzezinski might get Carter over the edge and support the [failed Iran hostage rescue mission]. But in the end I don’t think Brzezinski’s proposal is decisive. [White House Chief of Staff] Hamilton Jordan has been taking the lead in negotiating the release of the hostages and has failed. After the failure in March 1980, Carter was so frustrated with their diplomatic restoration that he chose the idea of ​​a rescue mission, which he has described to him since the week after the hostages were captured. . They had already begun planning a possible rescue mission as an emergency, but it took weeks of training and development. Then Carter and Brzezinski told them to add one more helicopter, but they should add two more. I still don't think it will work. The helicopter crashed in the desert and did not even reach Tehran. If they get there, taking the hostages will be very difficult. Many people will be killed, possibly including hostages. 

KB: Jon and I agree with the madness of helicopter rescue missions. It will never succeed. It will always be a disaster. Too many moving parts and too complicated. If they enter the streets of Tehran, there will be gun battles and people will die. 

But I think Jon and I still have completely different evaluations of Brzezinski. I was thinking in the spring of 1977, in the early days of his administration, you could see Carter being pestered by Brzezinski with these memos and saying, "Mr. President, you need to do some difficult things to show the Russians that you have courage. Yes. Something militaristic." Carter wrote in the blank space, "Like Mayaguez?" 

[Editor's note: In 1975, the Cambodian Khmer Rouge seized an American merchant ship named Mayaguez and captured its crew. In response, the United States launched a bloody and ultimately unnecessary battle to rescue the hostages. (The hostages were not on the island that the US military attacked. They were released at the beginning of the operation.) Forty-one US soldiers were killed in the battle. ]

JA: Okay, so Kay, if Carter gets Brzezinski lost, what is the enduring historical significance of Brzezinski's suggestion? Why is it so important?

KB: This is important to readers because it is really interesting and there is such a difference of opinion. This is the color-I agree. But it also has historical significance, because Brzezinski is ruthless. This has always been his message, it debilitates, and ultimately distorts Carter's own reaction to the event. In September 1979, remember the Soviet brigade that was hyped in Cuba? Brzezinski was furious about this and tried to make Carter a real confrontation on the Cuban issue. Eventually [Carter] realized the Soviet brigade after Mac Bundy and John McCloy's briefing-we always knew it was there, and we agreed that it might be there after the Cuban Missile Crisis in 62 years. This is totally doing nothing. According to his own memoirs, that was the moment Brzezinski seriously threatened to resign.

JA: I agree with all of these, but for me, the key person in that regrettable incident is [Idaho Democrat] Senator Frank Church, who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he faces a challenge. He will lose a difficult re-election campaign. He and some other former liberal congressmen were also crazy about this absurd Cuban brigade story-

JA: ——So I don’t think Brzezinski is decisive. What I think is important about him-this is an area we disagree on-is that he wants to be another Kissinger. He had this kind of confrontation with Kissinger, so he went to China before normalization, and he negotiated at least some normalization. Leonard Woodcock and another negotiator/diplomat did most of the work, but Brzezinski took an important trip. He is beating Holbrooke-George Packer's [Holbrooke Biography] has great content about that particular trip-but he said to the Chinese, "The first to climb the wall People can fight against the Russians."

Why do you think normalization is inevitable? I believe this is what you wrote in the book, and you have only devoted less than one paragraph. You say this will happen. My feeling is that [if] Gerald Ford was so afraid of the right that even after he was defeated and his political career ended, he rejected Senator Phil Hart (Phil Hart). )'S widow asked for the pardon of the draft picks' plea-Carter in his first week as president—if Ford had been elected [to another term], there's no way he would have defied Reagan and the right wing and thrown Taiwan under the bus the way Carter did, and normalized relations with China. This kind of normalization is the foundation of the global economy. Carter believes this is the most important and lasting thing he has accomplished during his tenure. I'm just curious why you think it will happen.

KB: I think you are right. If this is the case for Ford, he will bear pressure from the right, not to quote, "abandon the Taiwanese." But there are greater historical economic forces at work. Carter did win the 1976 election, and there was no disagreement between his team. Henry Kissinger supports normalization. Cervans is, Brzezinski is in favor. There is no dispute. There is no internal struggle. Everyone supports it, so does Carter, and I think it will happen.

Carter shook hands with Chinese Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping in 1979 and signed a series of signatures to normalize Sino-US relations. (National Archives)

This goes back to what I said at the beginning. We deal with these issues with different enthusiasm and interest. When I see that there are no internal disputes within the government, the story I wrote becomes less interesting. I think I gave it more than just a paragraph. I think this is important, but it is inevitable. Politically, this is going to happen, and it does happen, Vance is-returning to the competition-he is offended by Brzezinski's actions and [because] was stabbed in the stomach by the bureaucracy[ When] Brzezinski messed up his trip to China and undermined the Secretary of State. Brzezinski has been doing this. So, I think this is something to write. I just think this story is not as interesting as you. But this is not surprising. We will find different things. 

I spent a whole chapter on October's surprise. A little bit cautious, a little bit nervous, because this is a conspiracy theory and it's complicated, but I was attracted by this story, and you decided to give it two or three paragraphs. I don’t think we basically disagree with what may or may not happen. But I think it is worth a chapter.

[Editor's note: The October Surprise Theory believes that the Reagan campaign staff and Iran conspired to postpone the release of the hostages from the US Embassy in order to undermine Carter's chances of re-election. ]

JA: To be honest, my book has 782 pages with footnotes, originally it was 1,100 pages, and my publisher wouldn't even let me submit it unless I cut 300 pages. So I had to make some difficult choices for this.

But Kay, I agree with you. Tim, I think this was after you left Newsweek, but in 1991, Newsweek did this, in retrospect, trying to debunk the terrible cover story of October’s surprise theory. Kay and I are both concerned about the now-deceased reporter Robert Parry. In 2013, he saw a 1991 White House memo that mentioned [that] in the summer of 1980, [Reagan’s campaign manager ] Bill Casey went to Spain in the city because of the American ambassador and didn't know it. The entire cover story of Newsweek debunks the October Surprise Theory and is based on the idea that Casey has never been to Madrid. But it turns out that he is in Madrid. 

Gary Sick, Carter’s top adviser on Iran — he wrote a whole book about October’s Surprise — told me why he could not really prove the situation [is] all hotel records and other verifiable records The meeting between Casey and the Iranian regime was disrupted. Casey was the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, [Sick believes] destroying all evidence of guilt is a short job for him. Unfortunately, the Iranians participating in these meetings-their reliability is close to zero. So at the end of the day, as Kay said, we were left in the same place and this is how it can happen. But [we] will never prove it.

However, there are certain things we know for sure. There was a man named Joseph Verner Reed, who became the head of the protocol under Reagan and then as an ambassador under Bush. This person in the Rockefeller crowd, I have—[Kay,] Your venom to Brzezinski, I directly target this person Joseph Verner Reid. After the election, he wrote to his family, "I am proud of my role in delaying the release of the hostages until after the election." I mean, these people are sitting in the damp basement. . They were detained for 444 days, and he was proud of the fact that this pillar of the American banking industry was proud of his role in imprisoning them in Tehran. It's disgusting. 

KB: That's disgusting. But the other person still around is C. Boyden Gray.

JA: He is also a bad actor in this regard. 

KB: When Congress was investigating this October incident, he was George HW Bush’s White House counsel. There is a congressional working group led by Lee Hamilton, a highly respected [Democratic] member of Congress from Indiana. [Committee] has the right to subpoena. They summoned Bill Casey to travel in the summer of 1980. Any relevant records. The subpoena forced the State Department to search its records in 1991.

Hamilton should get some useful information from that search. The White House memo discovered by Parry in 2013 relied on information from the State Department. It referred to a telegram from the Madrid Embassy stating that "Bill Casey's purpose in the city is unknown." However, the Madrid Embassy telegram was never handed over to Lee Hamilton's Congressional Working Group. He didn't even know the telegram until I told him the 1991 White House memo in an interview. Hamilton then told me, "I never got [Telegram]. They never showed it to me. We subpoenaed it, but I never got it." No one was able to find the real cable, only the memo that noticed its existence .

JA: In my conversation with Lee Hamilton-he is very old, but he is a little angry. 

KB: Yes, he is very angry about it. 

JA: He [said], "They turned me into a monkey." He invested all his time in this investigation, and they hid key documents from him. 

KB: I asked for an interview with Boyden Gray. He is still alive in Washington, DC. He never responded. I wrote him a letter telling him that this incident appeared in the book; he never commented. He thought he could escape by chance, and he did. 

This reminds us why Carter failed in the 1980 election? I think a contributing factor is the dirty work of Bill Casey. He allegedly met with representatives of Ayatollah Khomeini in Madrid and assured him that the Iranians would get a better deal from his fellow Reagan. This is one of the reasons [Carter lost]. Another reason is Kennedy's challenge, which we have discussed, and how he weakened Carter's entry into the national campaign. Carter’s assistants often tell me that his failure in 1980 was due to the three Kings: Khomeini, Kennedy, and [former New York City Mayor] Ed Koch. 

KB: Why is Ed Koch? We haven't discussed this issue yet, but I wrote a lot about it in my narrative. I think this difficult relationship between Carter and Jews is very interesting. There is an editorial in the New York Times entitled "Jews and Jimmy Carter".

He had a difficult time with Jewish American establishments and people like Ed Koch who considered him anti-Israel. This started even before Camp David, but continued after Camp David-after he brought Egypt out of the battlefield for Israel, and carried out this victorious personal diplomacy, which led to a real and lasting peace treaty- Although it is a cold peace-between Israel and Egypt. 

The reason is that Carter continues to pressure the Israelis on the settlement issue. Why? Because he firmly believes that he has allowed [Israeli Prime Minister Menachem] to commit to freezing settlements in the West Bank for five years. If this is true, then this is not just a separate peace between Egypt and Israel; it turns it into a comprehensive peace settlement involving the Palestinians. It provides a road map for Palestinian autonomy and self-determination-they did not use [phrase] the "two-state solution" at the time, but this is what everyone understands. Carter realized that if you continue to build settlements, this will close the two-state solution option. 

So over the next 40 years, he was very blunt about it, and he angered many American Jewish leaders who were still angry with him. At the Zoom meeting to promote my book this summer, surprisingly, in the chat room, you can see the questions-they never directly ask me questions, the moderators are too polite to do so- -But you can see the questioner in the chat room saying, "Well, isn't Jimmy Carter an anti-Semitist?" The reason this is a hot issue is that Jewish American institutions have not yet come forward to defend Carter. In fact, they criticized him for putting pressure on Israel on the settlement issue: “You should not do that. This is Israel’s decision and should be done on their own terms.” 

TN: Even looking back, looking back at the settlement history of the past 40 years?

KB: J Street already exists. Recently J Street awarded Jimmy Carter an award. This is an amazing thing in the American Jewish community, and it is also very controversial.

TN: However, I am asking about your Zoom conversation. Have you heard anyone really deny that the settlements of the past 40 years have been disastrous in the Middle East?

KB: No one argues with me on Zoom, but you can see someone saying so in the chat box.

JA: What the settlement [is not] about. It took me a long time to deal with it, and Kay, as far as Ed Koch is concerned-he supported Carter and then sniped him. Chicago Mayor Jane Byrne supported Carter, and then basically supported Kennedy. 

JA: Hamilton Jordan said that if Jane Byrne had a baby with Ed Koch, it would have all the qualities of a dog, except for loyalty.

We can all write an entire book on this subject. I am also concerned about this misunderstanding at Camp David, which I think is partly the product of over-fatigue.

TN: Do you all agree that this is a misunderstanding, not a betrayal by Begin?

JA: Do you think this is a direct betrayal? Do you think [Begin] completely agreed?

KB: I believe Carter. Carter thinks that Begin agreed to him, and he deceived him. He either lied or deceived him.

JA: The promise did not really appear in the document. This boils down to a difference-

KB: This is a cover letter, and they agreed to a cover letter that says a five-year freeze on settlements. 

KB: Begin has agreed to sign the agreement. Then he replaced the letter.

JA: The actual language is to freeze settlements during the negotiations before the treaty. The Camp David agreement is not a treaty. They established a procedure and did not sign the treaty until March 1979. As I mentioned, Carter had to return to the area. There is a lot of work to be done. It must pass the Knesset. 

Begin’s understanding—in fact, he did betray—is that he will not do anything to the settlements in the five months before the treaty is signed. Carter believes that until a final status agreement is reached five years later. If Carter thinks that Begin will really not do anything in five years, then he is too naive, otherwise his performance is very good. 

I think the real hostility from the Jewish community, as you said, has always existed-Carter is the only modern Democratic president who has not won more than 50% of the Jewish vote-

JA: That was in 1980. 

KB: Yes, only 45%. 

[Editor's note: Reagan won 39%, so Carter still won the majority of Jewish votes. ]

JA: ——So all these bad feelings existed at the time, I think part of the reason is that many of them rejected Camp David. Many American Jews said, "You gave Mount Sinai? [The Camp David agreement] hasn't tolerated it yet." Now you can look back, and-I want to say, even though Jimmy Carter is the most critical of Israel among all American presidents People, but he has always been the greatest Israeli national security president since Harry Truman. Because, as Kay said, he protected Israel by taking the Egyptian army away from the battlefield. When I grew up as a Jewish kid in Chicago, we always heard "Israel is in danger of being driven into the sea." Only one army can drive Israel off the sea: the Egyptian army. You will never hear it again. It just disappeared from the glossary. That's because of Jimmy Carter.

KB: But settlements are important even today. This is why Carter's presidency is still relevant on this foreign policy issue. His warning is very predictable. If you build settlements, you will change the entire nature of the conflict, and you will also change the nature of the Jewish state. It is no longer a democratic Jewish state. It will become an apartheid country. He actually used this word in the title of the 2006 book, which made everyone angry. 

Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, Carter and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed the 1978 Camp David agreement. The peace agreement that Carter facilitated is considered an important achievement during his presidency. (National Archives)

JA: This is what makes people angry. This is why you and I have these questions, "Is Carter an anti-Semitist?" Because of the title of the book, Palestine: Peace is Not Apartheid. 

I remember it was 2006, when, "Wow, this is too harsh." But it turns out that not only Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, but also many members of the Knesset use the term, apartheid almost every week or every month. . 

KB: But Jewish American leaders will not.

[Editor’s note: After our conversation, Bird elaborated on this topic in a column entitled "Why do American Jews still call Jimmy Carter an anti-Semitic?" published in Haaretz on September 15]

JA: At Camp David, when he went to the area in 1979, although he was closer to [Egyptian President Anwar] Sadat, he was still an honest broker. But after that, after he stepped down as president, he was almost entirely on the side of the Arabs, and he was not even popular in Israel. No one will see him when he goes there. Then, when he met with Hamas, it really sealed it. But I think the discerning Israelis understand where this comes from. 

My book is not as focused on Carter’s presidency as Kay-I learned more about him in his early years. My basic argument is that he used the second half of his life to make up for what he didn't do in the first half of his life. He did not stand up for civil rights when he ran for governor in 1970. He made a dog whistle. He praised George Wallace. 

Therefore, as president, he introduced his human rights policy. Many years later, the great Harvard professor of international relations, Karl Deutsch, met Carter-who was depressed after he stepped down from office-and said: "President Carter, you will be remembered in hundreds of years because your government is For the first time in human history, the way other governments treat their own people has become a problem for your government." Carter cried after hearing this. The policy is hypocritical, but it is very important. As Andy Young said-America's support of international human rights is the globalization of the civil rights movement. The Israelis, the wise Israelis, analyze this in a very accurate way. They said that Carter’s attitude towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict stemmed from his regrets living on the land stolen by the Indians in Georgia, and did not stand up enough for the blacks in the South. He stood on the side of the weak and the persecuted party. In this case, it is the Palestinians. This provided his motivation, and he was fascinated by it. He has accepted a lot of interviews about the Middle East. I didn't spend much time talking about the Middle East in the interview, because it will take up the rest of the time. His biggest regret for not being re-elected is his inability to complete the work of Camp David and the inability to achieve comprehensive peace in the Middle East. I think the biggest regret of his post-presidential career is that he failed to make any real progress in the Middle East [as a former president].

TN: Is my conclusion correct? The irony is that you all agree with Carter. Although he has acquired this kind of rap in the Jewish American community, his attitude towards Israel is not tough enough because he did not ensure a five-year adherence to the settlement. ?

JA: There will be no transactions. They packed their luggage three or four times, packed both sides, ready to leave. 

KB: Yes, but I still insist that, in Carter's view, he believes that he has promised to sign this cover letter since Begin.

TN: Do you think it's possible, Kay, it might already be in [agreement]?

KB: In 1978, there were probably fewer than 20,000 settlers in the West Bank, maybe fewer than 15,000. There are approximately 700,000 people today. 

KB: By the time Carter left the office in 1981, there were already 25,000 people. So yes, it was originally a tricky issue, but Begin agreed to demolish the settlements in Sinai Peninsula. The settlements were frozen in exchange for the promise of a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinians—in 1978, this was possible. Now, if Carter had been reelected, he would have, as Jon has just admitted, he would have made this a priority. He would put tremendous pressure on the Israeli establishment to reach an agreement with the Palestinians.

JA: Yes, I think he will do it, but I don’t think he can do it at Camp David. If it is clear, it will almost certainly ruin the deal. The demolition of the settlements in Sinai is very different and has no religious significance-

KB: If he can't get it, he was cheated by Begin, who changed the letters. He agreed to sign a letter. Carter thought he had already signed it. Then at Camp David he said, "Wait a minute, this is a different letter." He called the Israeli assistant to Begin and said, "Go get the original Language." Then there was a delay, and by that time they had arranged a press conference [on] the White House lawn, and they were preparing to board the plane back. Carter believes that he has reached a deal that includes [a] a full [settlement]. Whether I am right or not, he believes it. And he believes he was deceived. Or lie, completely. This largely explains his attitude over the past 40 years.

JA: Exactly. But then at some meetings, other Israelis who Carter got along well—unlike Begin—say, “Come on, it’s one thing to abandon some settlements in the Sinai Desert, but this is—in the Bible. middle"--

KB: Judea and Samaria. 

Carter's 1977 White House photo. (National Archives)

JA:-So Begin cannot promise to do so. Carter should understand this. And that everybody was super tired on day 13. But I agree with you that, if he had been reelected, he would have not only pursued Middle East peace, he would have achieved it. Because, having been reelected, he would have paid any price to knock heads together, threatened to cut off aid to Israel, whatever was required, to get a comprehensive settlement.

KB: Especially after Sadat was assassinated. He believed that Sadat had sacrificed his life. 

JA: But interestingly, he also said that Israel gave up more at Camp David than Egypt. These are difficult concessions made by Begin. This is a huge area.

In another "what if?" category is climate change. If Carter had been reelected, he would have pursued Middle East peace, and he also would have begun to pursue a climate change agenda. 

At the end of his presidency, there was something called the "Global 2000". [White House] The Environmental Quality Committee is run by a man named Gus Speth and published a report on what is sometimes called carbon pollution. Carter began to study this problem in 1971. I found in his documents during his tenure as governor that carbon pollution and global warming were emphasized in the journal Nature. Other politicians play golf — Carter plays tennis — but he is reading scientific journals. This is how he gets his happiness. So they released this report. Surprisingly, the carbon dioxide reduction they proposed as a policy of the Carter government is exactly what was included in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Will we accept it completely? Will he refuse coal? No, because we needed coal to achieve energy independence. But he will surface global warming as a major issue. He is the first leader in the world who thinks this is a problem.

KB: If he has a second term, it will be a different world. We don’t have Ronald Reagan’s two terms. This is a great historical counterfactual.

TN: This is a good point to end the conversation, unless-let me check with you two-do you feel as if you have run out of this topic?

KB: We haven't exhausted this topic yet!

JA: Each of us has spent five years on these books!

If you like this article, please consider donating to help us make more similar articles. "Washington Monthly" was founded in 1969 to tell the story of how the government really works and how to make it work better. More than 50 years later, the need for insightful analysis and new and progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a non-profit organization, we rely on the support of readers like you.

Yes i will donate

A ruling that prevented the New York Times from reporting on far-right militant groups had an ominous impact on the First Amendment.

The loss of the U.S. Court of Appeals is almost certainly after the disgraceful former president lost the case in the District Court.

How the technical details of the law and gun culture enable (mostly white) men to escape murder.

It is time for the Biden administration to stand up for Central American democracy.

How the Democratic Party’s social spending plan will reduce the largest increase in costs for American households.