Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Jimmy Carter: Defender of Democracy

The 39th President of the United States, is being recognized for his steadfast commitment to the principles of democracy.

Jimmy Carter: Defender of Democracy

Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States

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.

Jimmy Carter watching election proceduresFormer 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.

Read More

Trump Shows That Loyalty Is All That Matters to Him

Guests in the audience await the arrival of U.S. Vice President Mike Pence during the Federalist Society's Executive Branch Review Conference at The Mayflower Hotel on April 25, 2023, in Washington, D.C.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images/TNS

Trump Shows That Loyalty Is All That Matters to Him

Last week, the Court of International Trade delivered a blow to Donald Trump’s global trade war. It found that the worldwide tariffs Trump unveiled on “Liberation Day” as well his earlier tariffs pretextually aimed at stopping fentanyl coming in from Mexico and Canada (as if) were beyond his authority. The three-judge panel was surely right about the Liberation Day tariffs and probably right about the fentanyl tariffs, but there’s a better case that, while bad policy, the fentanyl tariffs were not unlawful.

Please forgive a lengthy excerpt of Trump’s response on Truth Social, but it speaks volumes:

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Strikes Iran Nuclear Sites: Trump’s Pivot Amid Middle East Crisis

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine discusses the mission details of a strike on Iran during a news conference at the Pentagon on June 22, 2025, in Arlington, Virginia.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

U.S. Strikes Iran Nuclear Sites: Trump’s Pivot Amid Middle East Crisis

In his televised address to the nation Saturday night regarding the U.S. strikes on Iran, President Donald Trump declared that the attacks targeted “the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.” He framed the operation as a necessary response to decades of Iranian aggression, citing past attacks on U.S. personnel and Tehran’s support for militant proxies.

While those justifications were likely key drivers, the decision to intervene was also shaped by a complex interplay of political strategy, alliance dynamics, and considerations of personal legacy.

Keep ReadingShow less
What if We Fired the Parties?

"They want us divided sign" that represents partisanship among democrats and republicans.

Getty Images, Jena Ardell

What if We Fired the Parties?

Like many Americans, I have been increasingly disappointed by the candidates promoted by political parties because they tend to back candidates who are ultimately focused on personal gain and/or only advancing issues predetermined by party priorities while moving further away from responding to the needs of their constituents. According to The Guardian, in the 2024 election, the number of eligible voters who did not cast their ballot is more than the total of those who voted for either of the party candidates. So, maybe the real issue is that our political party system just isn’t working for most Americans anymore. Assuming this is even partially true, what if, instead of just complaining about the parties or holding our noses and voting for the "lesser evil" every November, we actually fired the parties—took away their grip on our democracy and built something better.

For decades, we've been told we only have two choices. But more and more Americans don't feel truly represented by either major party. We're exhausted by the noise, the blame games, the endless culture wars that solve nothing and only serve to increasingly marginalize portions of our citizenry. Americans want real solutions on housing, healthcare, education, wages, and the future we're leaving for the next generation. And we're not getting them. So, maybe it's time to ask a radical but necessary question: What if the problem isn't just the candidates but the political party system that keeps producing them?

Keep ReadingShow less
The Medical Community Tells Congress That Telehealth Needs Permanent Federal Support
person wearing lavatory gown with green stethoscope on neck using phone while standing

The Medical Community Tells Congress That Telehealth Needs Permanent Federal Support

WASHINGTON–In March 2020, Stephanie Hendrick, a retired teacher in Roanoke, Virginia, contracted COVID-19, a virus that over 110 million people in the U.S. would contract over the next couple of years.

She recovered from the initial illness, but like many, she soon began experiencing long COVID symptoms. In the early months of the pandemic, hospitals and medical centers prioritized care for individuals with active COVID-19 infections, and pandemic restrictions limited travel and in-person treatment for other medical conditions. Hendrick’s options for care for long COVID were limited.

Keep ReadingShow less