Connect with us

Politics

News Analysis: Carter, during and after presidency, changed way world saw the U.S. — often for the better

Published

on

News Analysis: Carter, during and after presidency, changed way world saw the U.S. — often for the better

Jimmy Carter ended his one-term presidency in defeat. For years he was derided as a weak leader.

But over time a fundamental shift took place in how Carter was regarded, fueled by his decades of post-presidential good works and the enduring power of his White House achievements.

Perhaps more than any single post-World War II president, Carter changed the way many saw the U.S. by attempting to inject American values of altruism, democracy and human rights into foreign policy.

Sometimes he succeeded; oftentimes not. But his effort left an indelible mark on nearly two generations of diplomats, public officials and global activists.

Carter is to be remembered Thursday at a state funeral inside the cavernous Washington National Cathedral. President Biden will deliver the eulogy and all four living former presidents are expected to attend, including one inspired by him — President Obama — and one who routinely attacks him — President-elect Donald Trump. No major foreign leader is expected — at age 100, he outlived all those he interacted with.

Advertisement

Keith Mines, a 32-year veteran of the departments of State and Defense, working from Mexico to the Middle East, recalled being stationed at Ft. Benning, Ga., with a military officer from Burkina Faso. During downtime, Mines suggested they check out Georgia’s beaches, mountains or the hopping city of Atlanta.

“I want to go to one place,” Mines recalled the African officer saying. “I want to go to Plains, Ga. I want to see the … place that produced this remarkable man, Jimmy Carter.”

Carter’s legacy is mixed. His administration succeeded in building key security platforms that endure to this day, while also promoting a broader global and domestic social agenda. As president, he officially made human rights the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, with particular impact in Latin America.

And he set a precedent for former presidents by continuing his public service, and charitable and human rights work, after leaving office.

Carter attempted to change the way the world viewed America at a particularly fraught time.

Advertisement

The 1950s and ‘60s were characterized by U.S.-sponsored coups that overthrew governments that rulers in Washington didn’t like; then came the torturous Vietnam War and the scandalous tenure of Richard Nixon.

Carter rose from nowhere, and became a president who spoke more about peacemaking than foreign conquest, about humanity over self-interest.

He was willing to wield hard power when necessary but also saw the value of soft power, what he would call after his presidency the combination of “enticement, persuasion and influence,” which he often thought was even more effective in winning hearts and changing minds.

“I’ve seen the foundational nature of Carter’s contributions to U.S. foreign policy … in advancing U.S. interests in the Middle East, China, Russia … but it does not end there,” Thomas Donilon, a former national security advisor under Obama and senior State Department official under President Clinton, said in an essay for Foreign Affairs.

His stewardship led to the first peace treaty between Israel and a warring neighbor, Egypt, which still stands today as the most important such accord. Although tensions on the Middle East have ebbed and flowed, the successful Camp David negotiation won acclaim among Israelis and Arabs alike, who praised it as an evenhanded approach from the U.S.

Advertisement

Carter was a peacemaker but not a pacifist, and saw the need for military strength. In 1980, in response to the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he declared the Carter Doctrine, which committed the U.S. to protecting oil production in the Persian Gulf and laid the basis for security infrastructure in that part of the world for Democratic and Republican administrations that followed for decades.

In the waning weeks of his presidency, Carter approved the creation of the Joint Special Operations Force, a group of elite military from all branches that would train and plan top-secret reconnaissance missions and other clandestine deadly attacks.

Carter saw its need after the failed attempt to rescue U.S. hostages in Iran. It remained in place, expanded through the years and eventually became involved in numerous controversial operations from Afghanistan to Iraq.

Carter seemed most proud of his work on human rights and democracy building.

His decision in 1977 to return the Panama Canal — long regarded regionally as a symbol of U.S. imperialism — to the government of Panama was widely praised in Latin America. It was a move initiated by Nixon at the urging of the U.S. military, which said operating it and the American military colony around it was expensive and unsustainable.

Advertisement

In the first years of his government, Carter also looked south and saw brutal military dictatorships controlling Argentina, Chile and other nations. He drastically reduced U.S. military aid to those countries and blocked their access to some international loans. Many of these steps, historians believe, were the first dominoes in toppling dictatorships and ushering in democracy to the region.

He “challenged the assumption that security assistance to repressive regimes furthered Cold War aims, and instead adopted the view that … U.S. support for these regimes had damaged its global leadership and made the U.S. complicit in human rights abuses,” Enrique Roig, a deputy assistant secretary of State, said in a recent forum at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

The son of Chilean parents, Roig credited Carter as a “beacon of hope” that showed him the United States could be a champion for democracy and human rights.

In June 1979, when the U.S. still supported the dynastic Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, Carter was horrified to see television footage of Somoza’s troops shooting dead an American reporter, ABC’s Bill Stewart, his hands raised at a military checkpoint. Carter immediately broke with the Somoza regime, which collapsed within weeks and gave rise to the Sandinista National Liberation Front, a revolutionary but eventually anti-American group. They launched social programs and were initially welcomed by a long-abused population — as was Carter’s perceived intervention.

But within two years, Carter’s successor, Ronald Reagan, worked to undo his reforms and soon launched wars in both Nicaragua, to oust the Sandinistas, and neighboring El Salvador to support its right-wing military government. Neither turned out as Reagan intended.

Advertisement

Fast-forward to 1990. Carter, a decade out of office, was in Nicaragua to monitor what were supposed to be the country’s first democratic elections. Sandinista President Daniel Ortega had agreed to allow the election — but was refusing to accept the results when it appeared he was losing to his matronly opponent, Violeta Chamorro, owner of the country’s leading opposition newspaper.

Carter sat up all of one night with Ortega, trying to persuade him to accept the results. “I know what it’s like to lose,” Carter told Ortega. Eventually, Ortega relented and allowed a peaceful transition to democracy.

Such post-presidency missions to bolster foreign elections, fight disease and build homes for the poor made the increasingly elderly but always engaged and gracious Carter a hero to many abroad. His picture would hang in activists’ homes; crowds would greet him in the streets in cities in Latin America and Africa.

“Luck broke against him in many ways during his time in office,” Carter’s former speechwriter, James Fallows, said this week on CNN. “But he then had the luck to bring out the best in himself, the best in fellow citizens, the best in what he hoped to bring to the world.”

Advertisement

Politics

AOC accuses Vance of believing ‘American people should be assassinated in the street’

Published

on

AOC accuses Vance of believing ‘American people should be assassinated in the street’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is leveling a stunning accusation at Vice President JD Vance amid the national furor over this week’s fatal shooting in Minnesota involving an ICE agent.

“I understand that Vice President Vance believes that shooting a young mother of three in the face three times is an acceptable America that he wants to live in, and I do not,” the four-term federal lawmaker from New York and progressive champion argued as she answered questions on Friday on Capitol Hill from Fox News and other news organizations.

Ocasio-Cortez spoke in the wake of Wednesday’s shooting death of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good after she confronted ICE agents from inside her car in Minneapolis.

RENEE NICOLE GOOD PART OF ‘ICE WATCH’ GROUP, DHS SOURCES SAY

Advertisement

Members of law enforcement work the scene following a suspected shooting by an ICE agent during federal operations on January 7, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Video of the incident instantly went viral, and while Democrats have heavily criticized the shooting, the Trump administration is vocally defending the actions of the ICE agent.

HEAD HERE FOR LIVE FOX NEWS UPDATES ON THE ICE SHOOTING IN MINNESOTA

Vance, at a White House briefing on Thursday, charged that “this was an attack on federal law enforcement. This was an attack on law and order.”

“That woman was there to interfere with a legitimate law enforcement operation,” the vice president added. “The president stands with ICE, I stand with ICE, we stand with all of our law enforcement officers.”

Advertisement

And Vance claimed Good was “brainwashed” and suggested she was connected to a “broader, left-wing network.”

Federal sources told Fox News on Friday that Good, who was a mother of three, worked as a Minneapolis-based immigration activist serving as a member of “ICE Watch.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Ocasio-Cortez, in responding to Vance’s comments, said, “That is a fundamental difference between Vice President Vance and I. I do not believe that the American people should be assassinated in the street.”

But a spokesperson for the vice president, responding to Ocasio-Cortez’s accusation, told Fox News Digital, “On National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, AOC made it clear she thinks that radical leftists should be able to mow down ICE officials in broad daylight. She should be ashamed of herself. The Vice President stands with ICE and the brave men and women of law enforcement, and so do the American people.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: Don’t let the mobs rule

Published

on

Contributor: Don’t let the mobs rule

In Springfield, Ill., in 1838, a young Abraham Lincoln delivered a powerful speech decrying the “ravages of mob law” throughout the land. Lincoln warned, in eerily prescient fashion, that the spread of a then-ascendant “mobocratic spirit” threatened to sever the “attachment of the People” to their fellow countrymen and their nation. Lincoln’s opposition to anarchy of any kind was absolute and clarion: “There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.”

Unfortunately, it seems that every few years, Americans must be reminded anew of Lincoln’s wisdom. This week’s lethal Immigration and Customs Enforcement standoff in the Twin Cities is but the latest instance of a years-long baleful trend.

On Wednesday, a 37-year-old stay-at-home mom, Renee Nicole Good, was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. Her ex-husband said she and her partner encountered ICE agents after dropping off Good’s 6-year-old at school. The federal government has called Good’s encounter “an act of domestic terrorism” and said the agent shot in self-defense.

Suffice it to say Minnesota’s Democratic establishment does not see it this way.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey responded to the deployment of 2,000 immigration agents in the area and the deadly encounter by telling ICE to “get the f— out” of Minnesota, while Gov. Tim Walz called the shooting “totally predictable” and “totally avoidable.” Frey, who was also mayor during the mayhem after George Floyd’s murder by city police in 2020, has lent succor to the anti-ICE provocateurs, seemingly encouraging them to make Good a Floyd-like martyr. As for Walz, he’s right that this tragedy was eminently “avoidable” — but not only for the reasons he thinks. If the Biden-Harris administration hadn’t allowed unvetted immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and if Walz’s administration hadn’t moved too slowly in its investigations of hundreds of Minnesotans — of mixed immigration status — defrauding taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars, ICE never would have embarked on this particular operation.

Advertisement

National Democrats took the rage even further. Following the fateful shooting, the Democratic Party’s official X feed promptly tweeted, without any morsel of nuance, that “ICE shot and killed a woman on camera.” This sort of irresponsible fear-mongering already may have prompted a crazed activist to shoot three detainees at an ICE facility in Dallas last September while targeting officers; similar dehumanizing rhetoric about the National Guard perhaps also played a role in November’s lethal shooting of a soldier in Washington, D.C.

Liberals and open-border activists play with fire when they so casually compare ICE, as Walz previously has, to a “modern-day Gestapo.” The fact is, ICE is not the Gestapo, Donald Trump is not Hitler, and Charlie Kirk was not a goose-stepping brownshirt. To pretend otherwise is to deprive words of meaning and to live in the theater of the absurd.

But as dangerous as this rhetoric is for officers and agents, it is the moral blackmail and “mobocratic spirit” of it all that is even more harmful to the rule of law.

The implicit threat of all “sanctuary” jurisdictions, whose resistance to aiding federal law enforcement smacks of John C. Calhoun-style antebellum “nullification,” is to tell the feds not to operate and enforce federal law in a certain area — or else. The result is crass lawlessness, Mafia-esque shakedown artistry and a fetid neo-confederate stench combined in one dystopian package.

The truth is that swaths of the activist left now engage in these sorts of threats as a matter of course. In 2020, the left’s months-long rioting following the death of Floyd led to upward of $2 billion in insurance claims. In 2021, they threatened the same rioting unless Derek Chauvin, the officer who infamously kneeled on Floyd’s neck, was found guilty of murder (which he was, twice). In 2022, following the unprecedented (and still unsolved) leak of the draft majority opinion in the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court case, abortion-rights activists protested outside many of the right-leaning justices’ homes, perhaps hoping to induce them to change their minds and flip their votes. And now, ICE agents throughout the country face threats of violence — egged on by local Democratic leaders — simply for enforcing federal law.

Advertisement

In “The Godfather,” Luca Brasi referred to this sort of thuggery as making someone an offer that he can’t refuse. We might also think of it as Lincoln’s dreaded “ravages of mob law.”

Regardless, a free republic cannot long endure like this. The rule of law cannot be held hostage to the histrionic temper tantrums of a radical ideological flank. The law must be enforced solemnly, without fear or favor. There can be no overarching blackmail lurking in the background — no Sword of Damocles hovering over the heads of a free people, ready to crash down on us all if a certain select few do not get their way.

The proper recourse for changing immigration law — or any federal law — is to lobby Congress to do so, or to make a case in federal court. The ginned-up martyrdom complex that leads some to take matters into their own hands is a recipe for personal and national ruination. There is nothing good down that road — only death, despair and mobocracy.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer

Advertisement

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Right point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • Democrats and activist left are perpetuating a dangerous “mobocratic spirit” similar to the mob law that Lincoln warned against in 1838, which threatens the rule of law and national unity[1]
  • The federal government’s characterization of the incident as self-defense by an ICE agent is appropriate, while local Democratic leaders are irresponsibly encouraging anti-ICE protesters to view Good as a martyr figure like George Floyd[1]
  • Dehumanizing rhetoric comparing ICE to the Gestapo is reckless fear-mongering that has inspired actual violence, including a shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas and the fatal shooting of a National Guard soldier[1]
  • The shooting was “avoidable” not because of ICE’s presence, but because the Biden-Harris administration allowed undocumented immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and state authorities moved too slowly investigating immigrant fraud[1]
  • Sanctuary jurisdictions that resist federal law enforcement represent neo-confederate “nullification” and constitute crass lawlessness and Mafia-style extortion, effectively telling federal agents they cannot enforce the law or face consequences[1]
  • The activist left employs threats of violence as systematic blackmail, evidenced by 2020 riots following Floyd’s death, threats surrounding the Chauvin trial, protests at justices’ homes during the abortion debate, and now threats against ICE agents[1]
  • Changing immigration policy must occur through Congress or federal courts, not through mob rule and “ginned-up martyrdom complexes” that lead to personal and national ruination[1]

Different views on the topic

  • Community members who knew Good rejected characterizations of her as a domestic terrorist, with her mother describing her as “one of the kindest people I’ve ever known,” “extremely compassionate,” and someone “who has taken care of people all her life”[1]
  • Vigil speakers and attendees portrayed Good as peacefully present to watch the situation and protect her neighbors, with an organizer stating “She was peaceful; she did the right thing” and “She died because she loved her neighbors”[1]
  • A speaker identified only as Noah explicitly rejected the federal government’s domestic terrorism characterization, saying Good was present “to watch the terrorists,” not participate in terrorism[1]
  • Neighbors described Good as a loving mother and warm family member who was an award-winning poet and positive community presence, suggesting her presence during the incident reflected civic concern rather than radicalism[1]
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

Published

on

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.

During an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.

“Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,” Trump said.

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado waves a national flag during a protest called by the opposition on the eve of the presidential inauguration, in Caracas on January 9, 2025. (JUAN BARRETO/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to lead.

According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.

But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had “nothing to do with my decision” about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending