More Cracks, More Light

On Jimmy Carter; on Trump supporters

My last post described the cracks – irregularities – in everything human, and of the liberation that comes from paying attention to them. As examples I talked about Canada, which most of us idealize, and about Maoist China, which most of us demonize.

Readers expanded on my point.

From Jacqueline Stewart:

Life expectancy in US is the same as it is in China, and both are four years less than in Canada.

From Canadian (and blogger) Alice Goldbloom:

Canada is far from perfect. But our healthcare system means I'll never face bankruptcy from medical bills or have to start a GoFundMe, and our social programs provide real support when people need it. I feel safer here – no school shooting drills for our kids. Practical policies like 12-18-month parental leave make a real difference in people's lives. . . We don't have a death penalty, women's reproductive choices are not up for debate, we're a country that chose to sell insulin patents for $1 to help everyone . . . Our foundation of caring for each other makes me proud to call Canada home.

I’ve known these facts for years. That’s why I was surprised to learn, years ago, that Canada lagged the U.S. on some environmental issues. Most developed democracies provide health care and education for all, and through regulations ensure clean air and water for everyone. The US moved in the same direction during the 1960s and 1970s, then turned sharply away. Hence my surprise at what I found that year in Toronto.

The jolt shook open some of my assumptions. I still appreciated Canada’s advantages, but now I saw that they were not gifts from on high, not out of reach for us. Instead Canadians work hard to create and protect their public goods. Sometimes the efforts fail. Canadians are not so different from us. We can learn from them.

Jimmy Carter

While I was thinking about Canada, former president Jimmy Carter died. Immediate news coverage repeated conventional wisdom: “He failed as president, but spent the years afterward doing extraordinary good.” As the reporting grew deeper, however, it presented a more complicated picture. First, coverage of his presidency changed, becoming more detailed and more positive. Carter, for instance, made respect for human rights an important part of our foreign policy. He also recognized the threat of climate change, years ahead of his time. (Remember the solar panels he installed on the White House, the ones Reagan dismantled?) The Camp David Accords may have been his most enduring legacy; the peace he forged between Israel and Egypt has endured.

Then came new appraisals of what he did after leaving office.

His work in global public health was monumental. For a visceral understanding of what he did, look at the agony guinea worm disease inflicts. Look, too, at the varied, culturally respectful strategies his organization uses. Along the way Carter and the Carter Center must have made mistakes. When they emerge, they will surely be dwarfed by his successes. My point, though, is that both deserve attention. Both are instructive.

Carter’s political work after he left office is more controversial. He criticized his successors in the Oval Office; most former Presidents hold their tongue. Carter called Hamas a terrorist organization, as does the US government. Then he characterized Israel’s occupation of the West Bank a form of apartheid. (Palestinians living there face restrictions others do not.) The United States government disagrees, but as a private citizen Carter had a right to speak his mind.

He was also a former president, which gave him opportunities far beyond those of ordinary citizens. Arguably he abused that access when he met with North Korea’s president, negotiating as a sort of “freelance Secretary of State.” On the other hand – there’s always an other hand – Carter’s intervention may have prevented a nuclear showdown.

As president, he succeeded and he failed. As former president, he was a renegade and a saint. Altogether a more interesting person than many people knew.

Trump supporters

Trump’s presidency will be interesting, too. For now, though, I want to talk just about his supporters.

I wish there were none. But since there are many, I’m glad I know some of them. I find nothing to respect in Trump; I fear the next four years. But in my friends, relatives, and neighbors who voted for him, I find much to respect. They’re not homogeneous; their attitudes toward Trump range from reverence to disgust. What unites them is a rejection of the other side.

That rejection is sometimes well thought out: For one friend, Biden’s foreign policy kept her from voting for anyone sharing his world view. Other supporters are more visceral in their rejection. I know someone for whom just the word ‘liberal’ is enough to make him shudder and turn aside.

There can be something almost as visceral among those of us who oppose Trump, a need to constantly reassert our opposition. I mentioned to a friend that one conservative, in defining his world view, criticized America’s having military bases in more than a hundred foreign countries. That fact troubles me, too. But my fellow progressive responded with urgency: “Conservatives reject them for different reasons than we [on the left] do.” Maybe. But surely the possibility of agreement here is more important.

And so I remind myself: Be wary of comforting generalizations. Respect your nagging doubts. That’s where the light gets in.