Thread by @sunnyright

I must be one of the few people who believe that Carter’s post-presidency legacy was, despite some mitigating work like Habitat for Humanity, far worse morally than his presidency.

Here's Jimmy Carter issuing a statement of condolences for Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

"we have never doubted Hugo Chávez's commitment to improving the lives of millions of his fellow countrymen."

"Chávez will be remembered for his bold assertion of autonomy and independence for Latin American governments and for his formidable communication skills and personal connection with supporters in his country and abroad to whom he gave hope and empowerment."

cartercenter.org/news/pr/hugo-c…

In the midst of the Cold War, while Fidel Castro was terrorizing his people, Carter was dedicated to normalizing relations and helping Castro economically.

In 2002, Carter traveled to Cuba on the dictator's personal invitation and, in a propaganda coup for the dictatorship, demanded the US take the first steps towards normalization.

His apologists have tried to mitigate that by pointing to his simultaneous calls for political reform -- but of course that didn't amount to anything.

That didn't stop Carter from again going to Cuba at the new dictator Raul's invitation in 2011 while Cuba was holding an American aid worker hostage.

Carter responded by attacking the US justice system, attacking US lawmakers critical of Cuba, and called the Castros personal friends.

The US aid worker remained imprisoned in Cuba for several more years.

foreignpolicy.com/2011/04/04/wha…

theconversation.com/jimmy-carter-i…

Carter's position on the Middle East and Jews in general was so morally messed up that his own advisors and allies ended up distancing themselves.

He was at best naive about Arafat, at worst an outright willingly blind apologist for terrorism.

His own former Middle East advisors -- including those critical of Israel generally -- have noted that he simply made things up in his writings in order to attack the Jewish state. He tacitly legitimized the killing of Jews in order to accomplish Palestinian political objectives.

jpost.com/international/…

Advisors who sat in the same post-presidency meetings as he did later noted that he simply made up stories and meeting notes in order to advance his narrative.

So egregious was one particular -- and now infamous -- book that he wrote, that 14 members of the Carter Center's board resigned in protest not only over his antisemitic messaging but over his outright making things up in it.

cbsnews.com/news/14-carter…

His response to criticisms of the book -- criticisms again that included from his own former advisors who simply noted he was outright lying about what happened at meetings -- was to say Americans were simply too afraid of Jews.

He then refused to debate the same critics.

cbsnews.com/news/14-carter…

Nor did Carter take the respectful post-presidential role the same people now engaging in hagiography for him demand of everyone else.

Beginning as soon as he left office, he began attacking the new US administration while on overseas trips. He quickly decided to start labeling the US government an embarrassment and criminal over Reagan's support for anti-communism efforts and demanded the US abide by the World Court's demands.

His actions were so egregious that Roslyn -- his wife -- got his top advisors to tell him to stop attacking the new president overseas.

cia.gov/readingroom/do…

jpost.com/international/…

I say all of this to say that the focus on his post-presidency as the really good part of his life is not only mistaken but to some extent willfully obtuse.

The real admirable part of his life was the time before that. His service in the US Navy. His efforts to move past racial discrimination in Georgia. And yes even some of his forward-thinking policies as president. As president he was more of a hopeless but well-intentioned president more than anything malicious.

People are complex, and they need to be judged by the times in which they did the things they did.

The things Carter did pre-1980 reflect far more of an admirable character than those he did in the final years of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century.

And before you feel too bad about being frank about Carter's record -- frank, not dishonest or vindictive -- realize that when Bush passes the mainstream media and mainstream left will have less respect and reverence than they did for Castro or even Austere Religious Scholars.

The immediate reflect on the passing of right-ish politicians is always Balanced and Clear-Eyed, seeing both the Good and the Bad. Demands for Respectful Blind Hagiography is reserved only for those political figures the left doesn't want you reflecting honestly upon.

Nancy Reagan's LA Times obituary went after her spending habits and past smears about her controlling her husband were regurgitated. Her past fights with advisors, all of her negative press coverage, problems with her children -- all were immediately fair game to reflect upon. latimes.com/local/obituari…

The NPR obituary for Barbara Bush similarly did not hesitate to mention protests against her for being insufficiently feminist, political gaffes, and even briefly leveraged her to attack Trump and support abortion. npr.org/sections/thetw…

Vanity Fair's obituary on Barbara Bush actually used her to attack Nancy Reagan by comparison.

vanityfair.com/style/2018/04/…

Nixon's NYT obituary didn't make it past the first sentence before talking about Watergate. So too were his policies immediately considered fair game to honestly reflect upon.

archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.co…

AP's obituary on HW Bush held back no punches on his policy failures and political gaffes apnews.com/article/north-…

So while you should be decent and fair in offering frank assessments, don't feel guilty for offering them -- especially in the face of a chorus of hagiographers attempting to rewrite history for political reasons rather than merely express condolences on loss.

Some of those people would prefer you focus on the post-presidency Carter because his policies and actions post-presidency that they want you to idolize, are their own preferences for current policy debates.

Whereas lionizing his pre-post-presidential life -- that of a devoted husband, son of the south, military serviceman, and advocate of fiscal responsibility -- well, those are less politically useful to them.