View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Queen Mary Research Online Student ID Number 089519314/2 The Managerial Moralist: The Domestic Policy of Jimmy Carter, 1977 - 1981 Robert Kirby Green Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1 Queen Mary University of London, October 2018 I, Robert Kirby Green, confirm that the research included within this thesis is my own work or that where it has been carried out in collaboration with, or supported by others, that this is duly acknowledged below, and my contribution indicated. Previously published material is also acknowledged below. I attest that I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the work is original and does not to the best of my knowledge break any UK law, infringe any third party’s copyright or other Intellectual Property Right, or contain any confidential material. I accept that the College has the right to use plagiarism detection software to check the electronic version of the thesis. I confirm that this thesis has not been previously submitted for the award of a degree by this or any other University. I confirm that this thesis rests with author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author. Signature: R K Green Date: 22 October 2018 2 Abstract Elected President on 2 November 1976, Jimmy Carter, was little known outside Georgia and was the first politician from the deep South to be elected since the Civil War and with the briefest record of public service since Woodrow Wilson. He presented himself as an outsider, not part of the Washington establishment, who would bring back an ethical, competent government. However, his devastating electoral defeat to Ronald Reagan in 1980, the worst for an incumbent since 1932, set the seal on what was widely regarded as a failed presidency. Carter’s much praised humanitarian record since he left office in 1981 has not prompted any serious re-evaluation by historians. This study dissects Carter’s domestic policies, re-evaluating the unresolved questions relating to Carter’s character and ideology and to put his presidency in the proper historic context. I will begin by reviewing the relevant historiography, the important issues of the decade and his early political life, including his triumph in 1976. I will then seek to address Carter’s leadership by analysing how his administration was organised, and exploring the key domestic policy issues, principally the economy, energy, health, welfare, labour and his approach to the social changes that dominated America in the 1970’s. I will conclude with his failed attempt to be re-elected in 1980. In conclusion I will comment on Carter’s overall effectiveness as a leader and how he should be ranked against other modern Presidents. This thesis is based on a wide range of sources including extensive use of collections from the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, the Library of Congress, the National Archives, the Papers of the Presidents of the United States, oral history transcripts, published papers and numerous other primary and secondary sources covering political, economic and social issues. 3 Contents Introduction 5 1. Organisation and Communication 40 2. The Economic Challenge 94 3. The Energy Crisis 135 4. Health and Welfare: The Betrayal of the Liberals? 169 5. Labour: A Fragile Alliance 206 6. Culture Wars 235 7. 1980: The Battle against Kennedy and Reagan 272 8. Conclusion 313 Bibliography 337 4 Introduction Presidential biographers and political historians have been harsh in their judgement of the Carter Presidency. Most have regarded him as a failure both in terms of his skills in the role and his ability to deliver on his key programmes. The few who have taken a revisionist position have not disagreed that he had significant failures but sought to put these in the context of the difficulties he faced which they argued were beyond his control. If his reputation as President could not be revised some have sought to unravel the enigma of his character and identify the basis of his ideology and beliefs in a wider context. The early historians of the Carter Presidency condemned his leadership and overall effectiveness, with some even questioning his character.1 Whilst Haynes Johnson in The Absence of Power (1980) and Burton and Scott Kaufman in The Presidency of James Earl Carter (2006) acknowledged the difficulties he faced, they argued that Carter’s failure was one of leadership style. He failed to articulate a vision for America and provide a coherent agenda that could deliver significant change. His administration’s poor relations with Congress, the press and even Washington as a whole, were viewed as avoidable. He failed to build relationships with key Washington insiders that were essential to him achieving success. His advisors lacked insider 1 Clark Mollenhoff, The President who Failed. Carter out of Control (London: MacMillan, 1980). Peter Meyer, James Earl Carter. The Man and the Myth (Kansas City: Sheed, Andrews and McMeet, 1978). Laurence Shoup, The Carter Presidency and Beyond Power and Politics in 1980’s (Palo Alto: Ramparts Press, 1980). Robert Shogan Promises to Keep, Carter’s First One Hundred Days (New York: Crowell, 1977). 5 knowledge and political expertise. 2 They characterised Carter as a mediocre President who, despite having an understanding of the will of the electorate, lacked the political know-how to carry the country with him.3 Some, like William Leuchtenberg in The Shadow of FDR: From Harry Truman to Barack Obama (2009), viewed Carter’s failure as inevitable as he did not take the opportunity to build upon the traditional Democratic coalition but tried to distance himself from his natural constituency.4 Kenneth Morris, in Jimmy Carter: American Moralist (1996) argued that Carter failed because he created a view of public morality that ultimately was too pessimistic for the public he was trying to influence. He tried to give personal moral leadership but was unable to support that with a vision to inspire the electorate.5 The deficiencies in Jimmy Carter’s character were the subject of several articles and biographies. In a 1983 Presidential Studies Quarterly article, Barbara Kellerman argued that Carter’s introverted nature hampered his ability to build key relationships. He acted always as the outsider. Even within his administration’s decision-making process he played a solitary role with his focus being on study rather than discussion.6 To Betty Glad, in Jimmy Carter: In Search of the Great White House (1980), Carter was a traditional politician who argued for change but did little effective to achieve it. He lacked a coherent plan and he hedged his positions when pressed. She argued that he did not act for the public good and used public relations for 2 Haynes Johnson, In the Absence of Power. Governing America (New York: Viking, 1980) and Burton Kaufman & Scott Kaufman, The Presidency of James Earl Carter (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006). 3 Ibid. 4 William Leuchtenberg, In the Shadow of FDR. From Harry Truman to Barack Obama (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009). 5 Kenneth Morris, Jimmy Carter: American Moralist (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1996). 6 Barbara Kellerman, ‘Introversion in the Oval Office’ Presidential Studies Quarterly Vol 13 (Summer 1983): 383-399. 6 his own ends. Also, he did not take criticism well nor did he learn from mistakes, both of which damaged his administration.7 The most critical of the scholars were those who studied the office of the Presidency in general. Fred Greenstein’s The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to George W Bush (2004), John Burke’s Presidential Transitions: From Politics to Practice (2000), James Pfiffner’s The Modern Presidency (2008) and Richard Neustadt’s Presidential Power and Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan (1990) 8 studied the key factors that made for successful presidencies. They argued that effectively presidents required a core set of skills such as being a good communicator, having a strategic sense, being persuasive, having managerial skills, self- discipline and emotional intelligence.9 Measured against these criteria, except for self-discipline, all these writers found Carter wanting. His inability to persuade the public over energy and economic policy, his poor relations with Congress and the national press and his inability to articulate a coherent vision for his administration were all characteristic of a failure of leadership. Those that focussed on organisational issues criticised Carter’s management style. They highlighted specifically his failure to select staff with experience of Washington and to appoint a chief of staff until much later in his administration. They argued that his belief in cabinet government 7 Betty Glad, Jimmy Carter. In Search of the Great White House (New York: W Norton, 1980). 8Fred Greenstein, The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to George W Bush (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004) John P Burke, Presidential Transitions: From Politics to Practice (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2000) James Pfiffner, The Modern Presidency (Boston: Wadsworth Engage Learning, 2008) and Richard Neustadt, Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents. The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan (New York: Free Press, 1990). 9 Greenstein, Presidential Difference. 7 resulted in policies that failed to consider not only the political realities but often the views of Carter himself.10 Revisionists’ view of the Carter Presidency did not really challenge the concept that Carter was an unsuccessful president. Their argument was in effect a plea for mitigation that given the problems he faced it would have taken someone with the skills of a Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) to succeed.11 In the Press and the Carter Presidency (1989), Mark Rozell argued that a more favourable view of Carter started in 1989.