Jimmy Carter & National Review

‘Jimmy Carter: went to Georgia Tech and Annapolis, did graduate work in nuclear physics; served as a submarine commander; made lots of money in peanuts; went to the Georgia legislature in 1962; was elected Governor in 1970.” So read the earliest comprehensive appraisal of the now-deceased former president in the pages of National Review. (He had received scattered mentions earlier, one of them claiming that Carter and Texas Democratic senator Lloyd Bentsen were considered “reactionaries” by their party’s Left.) National Review’s institutional attitude toward this son of Plains, Ga., was a saga unto itself: from confusion to frustration and ending in extended condemnation.

At first, Carter was mostly incomprehensible to NR. John R. Coyne Jr., a Nixon and Agnew speechwriter, did his best to make sense of the enigma in two reports on Carter’s campaign in 1976 while the Democratic primary was ongoing. “Carter’s support is strange, however, shapeless and difficult to diagram,” Coyne noted, adding a critique that many other conservatives would soon echo: “His position on the issues is still essentially unknown.” (William F. Buckley Jr. noted around the same time: “Jimmy Carter is not only less than concrete, he seems to take the position that it is somehow vulgar to be concrete.”) Coyne admitted, “I don’t pretend to understand the Carter phenomenon,” yet had to confess that “it is a phenomenon, and even if Carter doesn’t make it to the White House, I believe he may significantly alter the shape of American politics.”

About the Author

Jack Butler

Jack Butler is a former submissions editor at National Review.

Featured Tags

‘Jimmy Carter: went to Georgia Tech and Annapolis, did graduate work in nuclear physics; served as a submarine commander; made lots of money in peanuts; went to the Georgia legislature in 1962; was elected Governor in 1970.” So read the earliest comprehensive appraisal of the now-deceased former president in the pages of National Review. (He had received scattered mentions earlier, one of them claiming that Carter and Texas Democratic senator Lloyd Bentsen were considered “reactionaries” by their party’s Left.) National Review’s institutional attitude toward this son of Plains, Ga., was a saga unto itself: from confusion to frustration and ending in extended condemnation.

At first, Carter was mostly incomprehensible to NR. John R. Coyne Jr., a Nixon and Agnew speechwriter, did his best to make sense of the enigma in two reports on Carter’s campaign in 1976 while the Democratic primary was ongoing. “Carter’s support is strange, however, shapeless and difficult to diagram,” Coyne noted, adding a critique that many other conservatives would soon echo: “His position on the issues is still essentially unknown.” (William F. Buckley Jr. noted around the same time: “Jimmy Carter is not only less than concrete, he seems to take the position that it is somehow vulgar to be concrete.”) Coyne admitted, “I don’t pretend to understand the Carter phenomenon,” yet had to confess that “it is a phenomenon, and even if Carter doesn’t make it to the White House, I believe he may significantly alter the shape of American politics.”