Jimmy Carter is widely said to be America’s greatest ex-President. One who speaks truth to power (which is of course easier if you happen to have once been the most powerful man in the world). So, when the former President speaks, the press listens. Right now, everyone is fixated on his comments on the role of race in right wing rage against President Obama. Of course, the President was only stating the obvious – you would have to be totally removed from reality not to see a correlation between the racist fringe and some of those turning up to town hall meetings. I suspect, however, that far more than race is driving the rage. Either way, it is a legitimate topic to be debated, no matter how uncomfortable. I find it very inappropriate, however, when Mr. Carter talks about foreign policy issues in ways that undermine America’s global position. Mr. Carter’s latest remarks that America may have had a role in, or at least knew about, the coup in Venezuela a few years back, damage our credibility and influence in Latin America at a time when they are being challenged as never before. The comments are particularly damaging given that the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, is trying to put together an anti-American grouping in a region highly sensitive to “gringo” interference. They also undermine President’s Obama’s effort to restore America’s image in the eyes of the rest of the world. Mr. Carter needs to remember that his oath as President of the United States trumps any post-presidential role as an impartial global arbitrator.
Jimmy Carter goes rogue
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://dailyexception.com/2009/09/20/jimmy-carter-goes-rogue/trackback/
Well this is a debate which I see brought up far to much for my taste, usually in the context of “enhanced interrogation methods” of the Bush era. There is evidence that the US was involved in that coup–at the very least the coup was favorable to US interests, and once it had happened the Bush administration was highly supportive.
The fact that admitting the truth could have negative effects on foreign policy has nothing to do with what is the actual truth. Carter is not trying to say and write things that will make the US look good–he is trying to tell the truth, or what he honestly believes to be the truth, to people who would not have heard it otherwise.
You make my point. I am not going to go in to whether the US knew about the coup ahead of time – i simply dont know the answer to this – but i am going to talk about the conduct of a former President. Mr. Carter should understand that his words will be used as propoganda against the country he swore to defend and protect. In the case of Venezuela and Latin America this is particularly serious considering their importance to the US and their sensitivities re the US. This article is not about the Venezuelan coup. Its about the conduct becoming of a former President.
Just to be clear, are you saying that the interests of our country are more important than the actual truth?
What i am saying is that when it comes to foreign policy, a former President of the United States needs to put the interests of his country above his personal beliefs about what later Presidents should or shouldn’t do – whether in Venezuela, Haiti or elsewhere. He took an oath, which he needs to honor. His remarks, as a former President, carry great propoganda value. If he really needs to expose some dirty truth, there are plenty of other ways he can get the news out.
The full text of the oath of office of the president, as stated in the US Constitution and botched by Justice Roberts, is “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s it. It doesn’t say “I will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the United States,” or “the interests of the United States.” Carter has not in any sense done harm to the Constitution. He is certainly no longer “executing the Office of President,” and he has a perfect right to criticize the policies of the United States. He has not in any way criticized or harmed the constitution of the United States.
Unless of course you are referring to to a different oath which President Carter took, perhaps upon leaving office.
Well researched.
You are right that he didnt harm the constitution. He is also within his rights to opine on anything he wants to. But this is not about his rights. It is about his responsibilities as a former President.
But lets just say we disagree on this.