Synopsis
Jimmy Carter has baffled the public from his first bid for elective office in racially divided rural Georgia through his postpresidential career as a global peacemaker and human rights activist. Is he a moral visionary or a well-meaning but sometimes misguided moralizer? More important, what might America learn about itself by examining the life and legacy of this enigmatic leader?
In Jimmy Carter, American Moralist, the first full-scale biography of Carter since 1980, Kenneth E. Morris shows us that any conclusions about Carter's leadership and its adequacy to his challenges as president cannot ignore the moral quandary that vexed the nation not only under Carter but ever since. Through film and popular music, personality profiles and campaign summaries, poll findings and landmark court decisions, Morris sheds light on the cultural forces that shaped Carter and produced the troubled society that made him president.
Carter's story is the moral story of our times, and in asking not whether Carter is "good" but whether he has been good for America, we see the promises and pitfalls of our common values.
Publishers Weekly
It is astounding how little attention has been paid to Jimmy Carter's lifebefore, during and after his presidencyby publishers and biographers. University of Georgia sociologist Morris tries to fill the void with this thematic biography of a U.S. leader generally seen as a failure in office and a success as a statesman after defeat at the polls. Morris succeeds as an intellectual biographer but largely fails as the teller of a life story. He admires Carter as an above-board moralist during an age when such a persona could have been drowned by cynicism. But Morris is also convincing when he suggests that Carter's moralism didn't suit the country's needs during the last half of the 1970s. Morris is especially critical of Carter's failure to formulate and convey a platform for domestic policy reform. A president cannot, should not, try to govern with a foreign policy vision only, Morris asserts. While his decision to plumb the depths of Carter's moral lobe is a wise one, he could have done so while also giving more consideration to the events in Carter's life. That glossing of externalities often makes it difficult to understand Carter's moral judgments. Although Morris leaves the field open for a more thorough recounting of Carter's life before and during his presidency, his treatment of Carter at age 70 does offer satisfying insights. (Nov.)