Scan barcode
socraticgadfly's review against another edition
3.0
After I had commented in my review of Kai Bird's 2021 bio of Carter that I thought it was too hagiographic, more than one person here and elsewhere recommended this book instead.
Sadly, on Carter as president, it's worse. (Better? Much better at times? And to which this book shall be compared? Stu Eizenstat's memoir of his Carter White House years, which I found after Bird's bio but before Alter's. My review here. My review of Bird is here.)
This book gets a split rating. It's 4.5 on Carter the person, overall, I think. Maybe 4.25. But, it's 2.5 or so on Carter the president, and less than that on other political issues. It's more hagiographic than Bird, and it's less accurate, with some outright errors plus errors of omission and errors of interpretation.
Let's dig in.
Sidebar and opening: In what smells like something approaching plagiarism, Bird talks about the greatest legislative accomplishments since LBJ, while Alter, a year earlier, said he got more of his legislative agenda done than any post-war president to that point other than LBJ. As I noted on reviewing Bird’s book, Carter was only the second prez since LBJ and Ford served half a term plus a couple of months, and about all of that faced the hugely Democratic “Watergate babies” Congress.
I’ll add to that on Alter, though he does caveat his statement by noting Carter had a Democratic Congress, solidly so, all four years. On post-WWII presidencies, on Truman, besides opposition in Congress from Southern Dems at times as well as Republicans, NOBODY wanted to back national health care. Ike’s agenda wasn’t totally legislative — it was to keep the GOP from oblivion by being elected, first, then keep it from either isolationism by not letting Taft get the nomination, and after being elected, to keep it from domestic nuttery of getting rid of Social Security, etc. JFK had no real agenda beyond a tax cut. LBJ of course had a huge one and thanks to Barry Goldwater as 1964 GOP boat anchor, got it largely passed. Nixon’s agenda was focused on foreign policy and thus outside the purview of Congress. I mentioned Ford.
So, in other words, what Alter says, like Bird, is technically true. But, it doesn’t mean that much. Other than it illustrates Alter’s hagiography. (Alter, like Bird, overstates the good side, at times, and definitely avoids the not-so-good side, of some of Carter's deregulation work.)
Another example originates in pre-presidential years, but got big when Carter started running. That was his calling himself a “nuclear physicist.” Alter says “the term physicist, like chemist, does not require a credential.” Maybe not in denotative language usage, but connotatively, it does, and Carter didn’t and doesn’t have that. In
Next is Carter’s engineering-driven micromanagement style, already on display as governor. Alter not only makes light of it in general, but lumps non-micromanagement items, such as reading a Nature article in 1972 about carbon dioxide with the micromanagement to strawman the idea of micromanagement.
I also have a definite error on Alter’s part. He claimed the Republican convo in 1976 went to a fourth ballot.
Another error occurs later on, in discussing the Yom Kippur War as background to the Camp David Accords. Alter says Nixon raised US defense readiness to DEFCON 3. WRONG! Tricky Dick was Watergate-disheveled enough at this time that Kissinger and Haig acted unilaterally. I am sure Alter knows this; seems to be an “establishmentarian” papering-over at work.
And, there’s a big error of omission. Alter doesn’t tell readers that many people advised Carter to NOT take both Vance and Brzezinski in his administration, but of course did anyway. He also, later, doesn't tell you that Zbig meddled in Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion. (Eizenstat has all of this.) Beyond that, despite defending Carter’s Cabinet in general and having him put AG Griffin Bell in his place once on women and minorities issues, Alter doesn’t discuss Carter’s Cabinet formation in general.
Related? During his big Cabinet purge, Carter moved G. William Miller from the Fed to Treasury. When his first choice for the Fed declined, that led to Volcker. Alter says that Miller was one of the relatively few senior administration officials who actually got along personally pretty well with Carter. So, why not leave him at the Fed and find somebody else to replace Blumenthal at Treasury? (Kai Bird also never discusses this in detail.)
One last error, and it’s about the post-presidential Carter and the Middle East. Ehud Barak’s offer to Yasir Arafat wsa not “generous,” contra Alter. Arafat would have had to concede loss of 1/6 of “West Bank” Palestine, the fragmentation that would go with that, the loss of East Jerusalem and official forfeiture of the Right of Return. Alter knows all of this, too. (And that’s why I said the book is less than 2.5 stars on “other political issues.”)
There's also a subjective implied judgment of Alter that only Carter among the top 1976 Democrats could have beat Ford because of all the Southern states he won. Wrong, IMO. Mo Udall, much more acceptable to labor, would have won New Jersey, Connecticut, Iowa and Illinois for sure, while holding Missouri and West Virginia. He might have won Indiana. Give him Maine, a couple of upper Midwestern states and a couple of Mountain West states and he wins, and that's not even counting the possibility of Udall winning California with Jerry Brown campaigning for him more strenuously than he did for Carter. (Ford won it by less than 2 percentage points.)
And with that, my 3 stars feels generous.
Sadly, on Carter as president, it's worse. (Better? Much better at times? And to which this book shall be compared? Stu Eizenstat's memoir of his Carter White House years, which I found after Bird's bio but before Alter's. My review here. My review of Bird is here.)
This book gets a split rating. It's 4.5 on Carter the person, overall, I think. Maybe 4.25. But, it's 2.5 or so on Carter the president, and less than that on other political issues. It's more hagiographic than Bird, and it's less accurate, with some outright errors plus errors of omission and errors of interpretation.
Let's dig in.
Sidebar and opening: In what smells like something approaching plagiarism, Bird talks about the greatest legislative accomplishments since LBJ, while Alter, a year earlier, said he got more of his legislative agenda done than any post-war president to that point other than LBJ. As I noted on reviewing Bird’s book, Carter was only the second prez since LBJ and Ford served half a term plus a couple of months, and about all of that faced the hugely Democratic “Watergate babies” Congress.
I’ll add to that on Alter, though he does caveat his statement by noting Carter had a Democratic Congress, solidly so, all four years. On post-WWII presidencies, on Truman, besides opposition in Congress from Southern Dems at times as well as Republicans, NOBODY wanted to back national health care. Ike’s agenda wasn’t totally legislative — it was to keep the GOP from oblivion by being elected, first, then keep it from either isolationism by not letting Taft get the nomination, and after being elected, to keep it from domestic nuttery of getting rid of Social Security, etc. JFK had no real agenda beyond a tax cut. LBJ of course had a huge one and thanks to Barry Goldwater as 1964 GOP boat anchor, got it largely passed. Nixon’s agenda was focused on foreign policy and thus outside the purview of Congress. I mentioned Ford.
So, in other words, what Alter says, like Bird, is technically true. But, it doesn’t mean that much. Other than it illustrates Alter’s hagiography. (Alter, like Bird, overstates the good side, at times, and definitely avoids the not-so-good side, of some of Carter's deregulation work.)
Another example originates in pre-presidential years, but got big when Carter started running. That was his calling himself a “nuclear physicist.” Alter says “the term physicist, like chemist, does not require a credential.” Maybe not in denotative language usage, but connotatively, it does, and Carter didn’t and doesn’t have that. In
Next is Carter’s engineering-driven micromanagement style, already on display as governor. Alter not only makes light of it in general, but lumps non-micromanagement items, such as reading a Nature article in 1972 about carbon dioxide with the micromanagement to strawman the idea of micromanagement.
I also have a definite error on Alter’s part. He claimed the Republican convo in 1976 went to a fourth ballot.
Another error occurs later on, in discussing the Yom Kippur War as background to the Camp David Accords. Alter says Nixon raised US defense readiness to DEFCON 3. WRONG! Tricky Dick was Watergate-disheveled enough at this time that Kissinger and Haig acted unilaterally. I am sure Alter knows this; seems to be an “establishmentarian” papering-over at work.
And, there’s a big error of omission. Alter doesn’t tell readers that many people advised Carter to NOT take both Vance and Brzezinski in his administration, but of course did anyway. He also, later, doesn't tell you that Zbig meddled in Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion. (Eizenstat has all of this.) Beyond that, despite defending Carter’s Cabinet in general and having him put AG Griffin Bell in his place once on women and minorities issues, Alter doesn’t discuss Carter’s Cabinet formation in general.
Related? During his big Cabinet purge, Carter moved G. William Miller from the Fed to Treasury. When his first choice for the Fed declined, that led to Volcker. Alter says that Miller was one of the relatively few senior administration officials who actually got along personally pretty well with Carter. So, why not leave him at the Fed and find somebody else to replace Blumenthal at Treasury? (Kai Bird also never discusses this in detail.)
One last error, and it’s about the post-presidential Carter and the Middle East. Ehud Barak’s offer to Yasir Arafat wsa not “generous,” contra Alter. Arafat would have had to concede loss of 1/6 of “West Bank” Palestine, the fragmentation that would go with that, the loss of East Jerusalem and official forfeiture of the Right of Return. Alter knows all of this, too. (And that’s why I said the book is less than 2.5 stars on “other political issues.”)
There's also a subjective implied judgment of Alter that only Carter among the top 1976 Democrats could have beat Ford because of all the Southern states he won. Wrong, IMO. Mo Udall, much more acceptable to labor, would have won New Jersey, Connecticut, Iowa and Illinois for sure, while holding Missouri and West Virginia. He might have won Indiana. Give him Maine, a couple of upper Midwestern states and a couple of Mountain West states and he wins, and that's not even counting the possibility of Udall winning California with Jerry Brown campaigning for him more strenuously than he did for Carter. (Ford won it by less than 2 percentage points.)
And with that, my 3 stars feels generous.
smithological_stories's review against another edition
dark
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
tense
medium-paced
4.5
sillytothejoe's review against another edition
4.0
Superb journalistic look at Carter’s life. My only complaint would be I wish some bits were a bit more fleshed out. I don’t think there was enough Habitat stuff.
baileybooknook's review against another edition
5.0
A massive biography of the public and private life of Jimmy Carter. This guy. I love him. Deeply flawed but passionate about things that were ahead of his time. Pro civil rights, but fully aware and ashamed he didn’t do enough to stop racism in his back yard. Willing to lose his presidency and the public’s love for peace in the middle east, but completely fumbled Iran. A poet and long distance runner. A portrait of a sinful man on his journey towards sanctification. SO GOOOD.
papi's review against another edition
5.0
Excellent biography of former president Jimmy Carter. Alter not only chronicles his activities and accomplishments, but dives into his motivations (where supportable), influences, virtues and vices, and so forth. I thought it was reasonably even-handed. I appreciated the insight into Carter's character and behavior, and came away with the realization that he is a much more complex individual than I thought. This bio did what they all should do - it illuminated the complexities of the man, while at the same time turning him from a "figure" into a human being.
haileypitcher's review against another edition
4.0
STOP BULLYING JIMMY CARTER HE LITERALLY TRIED HIS BEST HE JUST WANTED EVERYONE TO GET ALONG AND BE HAPPY AND EAT PEANUTS HE WAS THE FIRST US PRESIDENT BORN IN A HOSPITAL