Capitol Letter: The Meaning Of Jimmy Carter

Carter believes in conflict resolution, which means that even dictators get to save face. It is not a foreign policy that Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing radio crowd can embrace. When Carter left office in January 1981, the United States had an image problem. Vietnam made political leaders in both parties fearful of foreign entanglements, and the rest of the world suspected America was a paper tiger, all growl and no bite. Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 on a platform of strength, and Republican presidents have campaigned and governed in his aura ever since. The Democratic Party is torn between the legacy of President Kennedy, who was not afraid to face down the Soviets or commit troops, and George McGovern, whose 1972 antiwar campaign proved an albatross for the Democrats they have yet to shake loose from. Even though McGovern was a World War II bomber pilot and was proved right about the folly of Vietnam, the stereotype of the far-left flower child stuck.

Politicians shouldn't avoid war at all costs. But if they oppose war with Iraq for good and valid reasons, they shouldn't be pegged as part of the loony left just because they've got a D after their name. Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran, spoke out against the war and then voted for Bush's war resolution. He wasn't accused of seeking political cover the way Democrats John Kerry and Tom Daschle were after making identical arguments and then supporting their president.

The dogs of war are straining at the leash. Bush's only way out is if Saddam is overthrown or assassinated. The administration can pray that happens, but they can't build policy on a prayer. The same neocons who denigrate Carter's peace prize look upon the United Nations as an encumbrance to war. Just as they sneer at the Norwegian panel, they wonder why the likes of France and China should have veto power over the world's only superpower. Carter sees the global picture.

© 2002