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

elementary school classroom
Urgent action is needed for our beloved public schools to renew civic life, writes Goodwin.
skynesher/Getty Images

Teach Leveraging in Middle and High School To Promote Democracy

It's all about leverage. You hear this from a lot of people. Thomas Friedman said it years ago in one of his Sunday New York Times columns on foreign policy. He was referring to international relations. In particular, he was talking about bargaining leverage, namely the kind of leverage that is needed to motivate an ally or an opponent to change their course of action, whether it concerns trade, military build-up, or political alignments.

People in business, especially sophisticated big business, talk about leverage all the time. Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad wrote a chapter in their famous book, Competing for the Future, that was all about leverage, although the concept of leverage they were talking about was resource leverage, not bargaining leverage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

If approved, the Democracy Voucher program would bring in $4.5 million each year through a property tax.

Road Red Runner/Adobe Stock

Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

A public funding mechanism for Seattle elections is up for renewal in next week's election.

The Democracy Voucher program was passed 10 years ago. It offers voters four $25 vouchers to use each election cycle for candidates who accept certain fundraising and spending limits. Supporters said it is a model for more inclusive democracy, touting higher turnout, increased participation from more small donors and a more diverse candidate field.

Spencer Olson, spokesperson for the group People Powered Elections Seattle, which supports Proposition 1, said the program helps level the playing field.

"It's really important that people's voices are heard and that candidates can run being supported by their constituents," Olson contended. "Versus just listening to those wealthiest donors, those special interests that have historically been the loudest voices at the table and really dominated what priorities rise to the top."

The voucher is supported by a property tax. Olson and other supporters hope to bring the model statewide. Critics said the program is not big enough to make a difference in elections and has not curbed outside spending. Ballots are due by 8 p.m. Tuesday.

Olson pointed out the vouchers have succeeded in encouraging more diverse participation in local elections.

"The intention of the program was to bring a public financing program to Seattle elections to help empower more candidates -- more diverse candidates, women, renters, people of color -- to have equal access to be able to run, and run competitive elections without having to rely on wealthy donors, special interests," Olson emphasized.

Olson noted because the money comes from a dedicated tax levy, unused vouchers roll over to the next election.

"The goal isn't to create an unlimited pot of money but to be able to provide resources for candidates to run with the community's support," Olson stressed. "But it's not a blank check at the same time."

Eric Tegethoff is a journalist covering the Northwest for Public News Service.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi
- YouTube

Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

The latest interview in this series features Rahmin Sarabi, founder and Director of the American Public Trust, an organization dedicated to promoting and implementing deliberative democracy practices, such as citizen assemblies.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”
An Israeli airstrike hit Deir al-Balah in central Gaza on Jan. 1, 2024.
Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”

President Donald Trump finally acknowledged there is “real starvation” in Gaza—a reality that has generated momentum among holdout countries to recognize a State of Palestine, as 147 of 193 U.N. members have already done. Trump claims that this impermissibly “rewards Hamas.” Concerns about the optics of “rewarding” a militant group that is not the country’s government should not drive the decision to recognize Palestine as a state or the decision to maintain diplomatic relations with its government.

Countries that have already recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the fact that the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) forms a defined geographic area with a government and a population—the traditional criteria for statehood. Countries that have not recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) lack of effective control over parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and to the idea that recognition can be used as future diplomatic leverage. But waiting to recognize a state of Palestine until after there is a negotiated agreement between Israel and the PA is an outdated position that amounts to “kicking the can” down an interminable road.

Keep ReadingShow less