Jimmy Carter, the 39th President of the United States, is being recognized for his steadfast commitment to the principles of democracy throughout his political career and beyond. Carter, the only Georgian ever elected to the White House, died on Sunday. He was 100 years old.
Carter is often celebrated for his steadfast commitment to the principles of democracy throughout his political career and beyond. From January 20, 1977, to January 20, 1981, his presidency was marked by a focus on human rights and democratic governance, both domestically and internationally.
Human Rights and Foreign Policy
US President Jimmy Carter delivering his inaugural address at the US Capitol in Washington, January 20th 1977. Vice President Walter Mondale (1928 - 2021) is seated at right, former President Gerald Ford (1913 - 2006) at left. (Photo by UPI/Bettmann Archive/Getty Images)
Carter's approach to foreign policy was notably different from that of many of his predecessors. He believed that the United States should not only promote its interests abroad but also uphold and advocate for human rights. This perspective was rooted in his personal convictions and guided his administration's dealings with various nations.
Carter articulated this vision in his inaugural address on January 20, 1977: "Because we are free, we can never be indifferent to the fate of freedom elsewhere. Our moral sense dictates a clear-cut preference for those societies which share with us an abiding respect for individual human rights.”
One of the significant aspects of Carter's foreign policy was his commitment to supporting democratically elected governments and advocating for political freedom. He was vocal in his opposition to authoritarian regimes, even those that were strategic allies of the U.S. at the time. This included a critical stance against the military dictatorships in Latin America and the apartheid regime in South Africa.
Carter withdrew U.S. support for the Somoza regime in Nicaragua. He reduced military aid to Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Ernesto Geisel in Brazil, and Jorge Rafael Videla in Argentina, citing concerns over human rights violations. He also negotiated the Torrijos–Carter Treaties, which established a timeline for the return of the Panama Canal to Panama in 1999.
By prioritizing human rights, Carter sought to reshape America's global image and encourage a more ethical foreign policy.
Promoting Democracy
One of Carter's most notable achievements in promoting democracy was the Camp David Accords in 1978. This landmark agreement between Egypt and Israel established a framework for peace in the Middle East and highlighted the importance of negotiation and dialogue in resolving conflicts. Carter's role as a mediator demonstrated his belief in the power of diplomacy and the necessity of democratic principles in achieving lasting peace.
“No region in the world has greater natural and human resources than this one, and nowhere have they been more heavily weighed down by intense hatred and frequent war,” he said as part of the address before a joint session of Congress on the Camp David meeting.
After leaving office, Carter continued to advocate for democracy and human rights around the globe. He founded the Carter Center in 1982, focusing on various initiatives, including promoting free and fair elections, improving global health, and resolving conflicts. The center has been involved in numerous election monitoring missions, helping to ensure that democratic processes are upheld in various countries.
Former President Jimmy Carter observes voting procedures in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, in 1990.
Cynthia Johnson/Liaison
In Celebrate Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday and his work on elections, Patrick Merloe, senior associate and director of electoral programs at the National Democratic Institute (NDI), wrote: He (Carter) first observed a foreign election in 1989 as co-leader, with former President Gerald Ford, of the joint international election observation mission to Panama organized by the nonpartisan National Democratic Institute and what is now the International Republican Institute. His role in helping to expose Manuel Noriega’s attempted fraud in that election had profound effects in Panama and inspired Carter to do more.
“In my role of almost three decades leading NDI’s international election programs, I had the honor of working closely with Carter in numerous elections,” Merloe said. “I witnessed him bring together for the first time in years the two antagonistic leaders of Bangladesh and negotiate their renouncing violence in an upcoming election. I saw him help Liberia’s contentious presidential candidates accept electoral results. He brought international attention to the credibility of Palestinian elections and promoted confidence in Peru’s post-Fujimori elections when public trust was fragile. Carter's commitment to democracy has also been evident in his writings and public speeches. He has consistently emphasized the importance of civic engagement, the rule of law, and the protection of individual rights as foundational elements of a healthy democracy."
While Carter's dedication to democracy and human rights has earned him respect, his presidency faced significant challenges, including economic issues and the Iran Hostage Crisis. Critics argue that his emphasis on human rights sometimes complicated U.S. relations with countries strategically important to American interests. Nonetheless, Carter's vision of democracy as a universal value remains a significant aspect of his legacy.
President Bush Meets with Nobel Laureates, including fomer president, Jimmy Cartergeorgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov
Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 “for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.”
“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn to live together in peace by killing each other’s children,” Carter said in his Nobel acceptance speech.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.