The Carter Presidency Was Better Than Many Remember

The following is part of an op-ed by Kai Bird in The New York Times:

His presidency is remembered, simplistically, as a failure, yet it was more consequential than most recall. He delivered the Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel, the SALT II arms control agreement, normalization of diplomatic and trade relations with China and immigration reform. He made the principle of human rights a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, planting the seeds for the unraveling of the Cold War in Eastern Europe and Russia.

He deregulated the airline industry, paving the way for middle-class Americans to fly for the first time in large numbers, and he regulated natural gas, laying the groundwork for our current energy independence. He worked to require seatbelts or airbags, which would go on to save 9,000 American lives each year. He inaugurated the nation’s investment in research on solar energy and was one of the first presidents to warn us about the dangers of climate change. He rammed through the Alaska Land Act, tripling the size of the nation’s protected wilderness areas. His deregulation of the home-brewing industry opened the door to America’s thriving boutique beer industry. He appointed more African Americans, Hispanics and women to the federal bench, substantially increasing their numbers.

But some of his controversial decisions, at home and abroad, were just as consequential. He took Egypt off the battlefield for Israel, but he always insisted that Israel was also obligated to suspend building new settlements in the West Bank and allow the Palestinians a measure of self-rule. Over the decades, he would argue that the settlements had become a roadblock to a two-state solution and a peaceful resolution of the conflict. He was not afraid to warn everyone that Israel was taking a wrong turn on the road to apartheid. Sadly, some critics injudiciously concluded that he was being anti-Israel or worse.

In the aftermath of the Iranian revolution, Mr. Carter rightly resisted for many months the lobbying of Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and his own national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to give the deposed shah political asylum. Mr. Carter feared that to do so would inflame Iranian passions and endanger our embassy in Tehran. He was right. Just days after he reluctantly acceded and the shah checked into a New York hospital, our embassy was seized. The 444-day hostage crisis severely wounded his presidency.

But Mr. Carter refused to order any military retaliations against the rogue regime in Tehran. That would have been the politically easy thing to do, but he also knew it would endanger the lives of the hostages. Diplomacy, he insisted, would work. And yet now we have good evidence that Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager Bill Casey made a secret trip to Madrid in the summer of 1980, where he may have met with a representative of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and thus prolonged the hostage crisis. If this is true, such interference in the hostage negotiations sought to deny the Carter administration an October surprise, a release of the hostages late in the campaign, and it was dirty politics and a raw deal for the American hostages.

Mr. Carter’s presidency was virtually scandal free. He often spent 12 hours or more in the Oval Office reading 200 pages of memos a day. He was intent on doing the right thing and right away.

But there were political consequences to such righteousness. In 1976, while he won the electoral votes of the South and the union, Jewish and Black popular votes, by 1980, the only large margin Mr. Carter sustained was among Black voters. Even evangelicals deserted him because he had insisted on stripping tax-exempt status from all-white religious academies.

The majority of the country rejected him as a president way ahead of his time: too much of a Georgian Yankee for the New South and too much of an outlier populist for the North. If the election in 1976 offered hope for a healing of the racial divide, his defeat signaled that the country was reverting to a conservative era of harsh partisanship. It was a tragic narrative familiar to any Southerner.

Jimmy Carter's Op-Ed On The January 6th Insurrection

Yesterday marked the most dangerous attack on American democracy in modern history. Here is what President Jimmy Carter had to say about it in The New York Times:

One year ago, a violent mob, guided by unscrupulous politicians, stormed the Capitol and almost succeeded in preventing the democratic transfer of power. All four of us former presidents condemned their actions and affirmed the legitimacy of the 2020 election. There followed a brief hope that the insurrection would shock the nation into addressing the toxic polarization that threatens our democracy.

However, one year on, promoters of the lie that the election was stolen have taken over one political party and stoked distrust in our electoral systems. These forces exert power and influence through relentless disinformation, which continues to turn Americans against Americans. According to the Survey Center on American Life, 36 percent of Americans — almost 100 million adults across the political spectrum — agree that “the traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.” The Washington Post recently reported that roughly 40 percent of Republicans believe that violent action against the government is sometimes justified.

Politicians in my home state of Georgia, as well as in others, such as Texas and Florida, have leveraged the distrust they have created to enact laws that empower partisan legislatures to intervene in election processes. They seek to win by any means, and many Americans are being persuaded to think and act likewise, threatening to collapse the foundations of our security and democracy with breathtaking speed. I now fear that what we have fought so hard to achieve globally — the right to free, fair elections, unhindered by strongman politicians who seek nothing more than to grow their own power — has become dangerously fragile at home.

I personally encountered this threat in my own backyard in 1962, when a ballot-stuffing county boss tried to steal my election to the Georgia State Senate. This was in the primary, and I challenged the fraud in court. Ultimately, a judge invalidated the results, and I won the general election. Afterward, the protection and advancement of democracy became a priority for me. As president, a major goal was to institute majority rule in southern Africa and elsewhere.

After I left the White House and founded the Carter Center, we worked to promote free, fair and orderly elections across the globe. I led dozens of election observation missions in Africa, Latin America and Asia, starting with Panama in 1989, where I put a simple question to administrators: “Are you honest officials or thieves?” At each election, my wife, Rosalynn, and I were moved by the courage and commitment of thousands of citizens walking miles and waiting in line from dusk to dawn to cast their first ballots in free elections, renewing hope for themselves and their nations and taking their first steps to self-governance. But I have also seen how new democratic systems — and sometimes even established ones — can fall to military juntas or power-hungry despots. Sudan and Myanmar are two recent examples.

For American democracy to endure, we must demand that our leaders and candidates uphold the ideals of freedom and adhere to high standards of conduct.

First, while citizens can disagree on policies, people of all political stripes must agree on fundamental constitutional principles and norms of fairness, civility and respect for the rule of law. Citizens should be able to participate easily in transparent, safe and secure electoral processes. Claims of election irregularities should be submitted in good faith for adjudication by the courts, with all participants agreeing to accept the findings. And the election process should be conducted peacefully, free of intimidation and violence.

Second, we must push for reforms that ensure the security and accessibility of our elections and ensure public confidence in the accuracy of results. Phony claims of illegal voting and pointless multiple audits only detract from democratic ideals.

Third, we must resist the polarization that is reshaping our identities around politics. We must focus on a few core truths: that we are all human, we are all Americans and we have common hopes for our communities and our country to thrive. We must find ways to re-engage across the divide, respectfully and constructively, by holding civil conversations with family, friends and co-workers and standing up collectively to the forces dividing us.

Fourth, violence has no place in our politics, and we must act urgently to pass or strengthen laws to reverse the trends of character assassination, intimidation and the presence of armed militias at events. We must protect our election officials — who are trusted friends and neighbors of many of us — from threats to their safety. Law enforcement must have the power to address these issues and engage in a national effort to come to terms with the past and present of racial injustice.

Lastly, the spread of disinformation, especially on social media, must be addressed. We must reform these platforms and get in the habit of seeking out accurate information. Corporate America and religious communities should encourage respect for democratic norms, participation in elections and efforts to counter disinformation.

Our great nation now teeters on the brink of a widening abyss. Without immediate action, we are at genuine risk of civil conflict and losing our precious democracy. Americans must set aside differences and work together before it is too late.

Most Expect Trump To Be The Worst President Since Nixon

The chart above was made from information in a new Public Policy Polling survey -- done on January 23rd and 24th of a random national sample of 1,043 registered voters, with a margin of error of 3 points.

It shows that the general public has some very low expectations of the Trump presidency. In fact, they think he will be a worse president than any president between Obama and Ford. The only president they view Trump as possibly being better than is Nixon (who was impeached and had to resign).

Personally, I wouldn't give Trump that much credit. I think he will be worse than Richard Nixon.

Carter Is Recognized As Having Best Post-President Career

Jimmy Carter had a troubled presidency -- so troubled that he lost his re-election bid to a second-rate actor. But his post-presidency has been a remarkable one. He has remained very busy -- building houses for the homeless, speaking up for equal rights and human rights, and traveling the world to try and insure elections are held fairly.

And his work has not gone unrecognized. About 40% of the population say he has had the best post-president career of any of the five presidents preceding President Obama. Ronald Reagan finished second with 24% (although I think that's wishful thinking by his supporters, since he did very little after his presidency), and Bill Clinton finished third with 19% (mostly because of the Clinton Foundation, that has helped people worldwide).

This question was asked on the newest Quinnipiac University Poll -- done between October 29th and November 2nd of a random national sample of 1,144 registered voters, with a margin of error of 2.9 points.

Some Bad News Regarding A Very Good Man

(This photo of former President Jimmy Carter is from cnn.com.)

We can argue endlessly about whether he was a good president or not (and I expect historians will argue it far into the future), but one thing is without question -- there has never been a more decent and caring man in the oval office than Jimmy Carter. That's why this news makes me sad.

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

The following statement from former President Jimmy Carter, who will turn 91 in October, was just released by the Carter Center in Atlanta:

“Recent liver surgery revealed that I have cancer that now is in other parts of my body. I will be rearranging my schedule as necessary so I can undergo treatment by physicians at Emory Healthcare. A more complete public statement will be made when facts are known, possibly next week.”

Last week, the Carter Center had disclosed the the former president had undergone elective surgery to “remove a small mass in his liver.” No further details were offered at the time.

There’s plenty more here in our main story, that will be updated through the evening. A piece:

Jill Stuckey, a close friend of Jimmy and his wife Rosalynn, said residents have been “praying ever since we found out about the small mass on his liver.”

“He’s done everything right. He exercises, he eats right, that’s how he’s gotten to be 90 and (still) going to different continents,” said Stuckey, who helps manage the crowds of visitors at Maranatha Baptist Church when the former president gives lessons.

There’s a history of cancer in Carter’s family, she added, “but if anyone can beat it, it’s Jimmy Carter.”

The well wishes flowed in from across the political world. From his vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, President Barack Obama called Carter and sent the following statement:

“Michelle and I send our best wishes to President Carter for a fast and full recovery. Our thoughts and prayers are with Rosalynn and the entire Carter family as they face this challenge with the same grace and determination that they have shown so many times before. Jimmy, you’re as resilient as they come, and along with the rest of America, we are rooting for you.”

Carter Speaks Out Against Worldwide Inequality And Violence Against Women

I apologize for missing it, but November 25th was an important day internationally. It was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. To help that worthy cause, former-President Jimmy Carter wrote an article. It was a powerful condemnation of the violence and inequality experienced by women worldwide. It deserves to be read by as many people as possible, because there is no country where this is not a problem. Here is what he said:

One of the most powerful truths in my Christian faith is that I and all other people are equal in the eyes of God. Many believers of all religions – Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists – violate this basic premise by claiming that men are exalted at the expense of women.

Several years ago my wife Rosalynn and I decided to sever our ties to the Baptist denomination to which I had given allegiance for seventy years because its leaders decided to depart from this principle and to deprive women of equal rights to serve as ministers, deacons, chaplains, or in other positions of leadership. We continue to worship in our local Baptist church that is served by both a male and female minister, where I teach Bible lessons and Rosalynn is a deacon.

Devout Christians can select specific verses from the Holy Scriptures to justify this claim of masculine superiority, but their premise contradicts the incontrovertible fact that Jesus Christ never condoned the subservience – or inferiority – of women. It is well known that there were many examples of women leaders in the early Christian churches.

This prejudice, unfortunately, is extremely common. Men who wish to abuse women physically, deprive them of equal pay or exclude them from the same opportunities in political or economic affairs tend to justify their actions because of this misinterpretation by men who are in ascendant religious positions.

The abuse of women and girls is the most pervasive and unaddressed human rights violation on earth.

Women’s inequality has profoundly affected our world. Scholarly studies have shown that about 160 million women are not living because girls are less valued.

In extremely poor families, or when the number of children is limited by law, baby girls have been killed as soon as their sex was determined after birth. With the more recent advent of sonogram examinations, the identified foetus of a girl is simply aborted. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen estimates that at least 50 million women and girls are missing in China, and similar consequences are evident in India and other countries.

A shortage of wives has developed, which has added to the widespread trafficking in girls, some to be forced into unwanted marriages, and others into prostitution or household slavery. In some societies, girls are deprived of an equal opportunity for education. They are strictly prohibited from community activities that men and boys perform. When healthcare, food or other necessities are limited, men and boys get first priority.

In addition to deprivation and forced early marriages, rape and other sexual assaults are all too prevalent, even in wealthy and otherwise law-abiding environments. This includes females in the United States who are students in universities or who serve in the military.

Rape has become an accepted privilege of war in the Eastern Congo and other zones of combat. In India, a rape is reported every 22 minutes with few convictions or punishment of those who attack women. There is no country on earth where discrimination against women and girls does not exist in some form.

Resolutions have been adopted in recent years by the UN Security Council and General Assembly to expose and condemn these practices, which directly violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

25 November has been set by the United Nations as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. On this day we are compelled to think about the abuse and deprivation of women in this broad sense, starting with women’s inequality at the heart of our institutions. We need to reflect upon the fact that our churches, mosques, boardrooms and parliaments still condone laws and customs that violate the rights of women as equals.

We must ensure that UN principles are upheld. We can work within the frame of a powerful document, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). All countries on earth have ratified this text – except five, including the United States.

I would urge everyone to read once again the brief, clear, and incisive paragraphs of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It spells out a commitment made in 1948 by every country on earth to recognise the inalienable rights of all people, with an emphasis on equal rights of men and women “without distinction of any kind”.

We must honour these guarantees of an end to discrimination against at least half the people on earth.

Until then, our mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters will continue to live in a world that is profoundly different and more dangerous than my own.

Jimmy Carter

Democrats Will Have A Strong Gubernatorial Candidate In Georgia

(This image of Jason Carter, with his grandfather, is from Politico.com.)

Democrats were already hoping to score a major victory in the red state of Georgia. They have an excellent candidate for the U.S. Senate -- Michelle Nunn, daughter of the revered Democratic Georgia senator Sam Nunn. Ms. Nunn has been running equal in the polls with all of her possible GOP rivals, and many believe she has a good chance to win that race. But having some other strong Democratic candidates on the ballot would increase her chances.

Now that has happened. State Senator Jason Carter announced on Wednesday, in an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, that he will seek the Democratic nomination to run against the incumbent Republican governor in the 2014 election. Jason is the grandson of former Georgia governor and U.S. president, Jimmy Carter.

I haven't seen any polls on Carter's chances in the gubernatorial race, but his family name won't hurt him and I'm sure his grandfather will do some campaigning (which will help). Best of all, having both Carter and Nunn on the Democratic ticket will increase the party's chances of winning either or both races. With candidates like these, competent candidates sporting well-known family names, will show us whether Georgia (like Virginia) is ready to move from a red state to a purple one.

Jimmy Carter On Economic Inequality

While the politicians in Washington continue to play political games and ignore the economic reality that this nation is fast becoming one of the most unequal nations on Earth, there is one ex-president who is still willing to speak the truth -- Jimmy Carter. Taking time off from helping out Habitat for Humanity in Oakland on Monday, Carter gave an interview to the Associated Press.

He said that too many years of tax breaks for the wealthy, a minimum wage that has not kept up with inflation, and gerrymandered electoral districts that maximize political polarization, have reduced the quality of life for most Americans and put in peril the country's standing as a "real superpower".

He is absolutely right. The Republican policies we have lived under for the last three decades have seriously damaged this country, and we must change those policies. Here is more of what he had to say:

"Even in one of the wealthiest parts of the world there is a great deal of foreclosures and now a great deal of people who are fortunate to own their own houses owe more on them than the houses are worth in the present market, and that's all changed in the last eight years."

"The disparity between rich people and poor people in America has increased dramatically since when we started. The middle class has become more like poor people than they were 30 years ago. So I don't think it's getting any better."


"Equity of taxation and treating the middle class with a great deal of attention, providing funding for people in true need, like for affordable housing, those are the sort of things that would pay rich dividends for Americans no matter what kind of income they have."


"The richest people in America would be better off if everybody lived in a decent home and had a chance to pay for it, and if everyone had enough income even if they had a daily job to be good buyers for the products that are produced."

Jimmy Carter Speaks About Hugo Chavez

Ex-President Jimmy Carter has released a statement regarding the death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The statement was released on 3/5/2013 through the Carter Center. Here is what Mr. Carter had to say:

Rosalynn and I extend our condolences to the family of Hugo Chávez Frías.  We met Hugo Chávez when he was campaigning for president in 1998 and The Carter Center was invited to observe elections for the first time in Venezuela.  We returned often, for the 2000 elections, and then to facilitate dialogue during the political conflict of 2002-2004.  We came to know a man who expressed a vision to bring profound changes to his country to benefit especially those people who had felt neglected and marginalized.  Although we have not agreed with all of the methods followed by his government, we have never doubted Hugo Chávez's commitment to improving the lives of millions of his fellow countrymen.

President Chávez will be remembered for his bold assertion of autonomy and independence for Latin American governments and for his formidable communication skills and personal connection with supporters in his country and abroad to whom he gave hope and empowerment.  During his 14-year tenure, Chávez joined other leaders in Latin America and the Caribbean to create new forms of integration.  Venezuelan poverty rates were cut in half, and millions received identification documents for the first time allowing them to participate more effectively in their country's economic and political life.

At the same time, we recognize the divisions created in the drive towards change in Venezuela and the need for national healing.  We hope that as Venezuelans mourn the passing of President Chávez and recall his positive legacies — especially the gains made for the poor and vulnerable — the political leaders will move the country forward by building a new consensus that ensures equal opportunities for all Venezuelans to participate in every aspect of national life.

Religion As Excuse For Inequality

Jimmy Carter is a fundamentalist christian, but he is also an intelligent man and not afraid to speak the truth. He knows that religion has been used as an excuse to justify inequality in this country, and is still being used that way. In the past, it has been used to justify slavery and then segregation. Now it is being used to keep women (and gays/lesbians) as second class citizens -- lacking the same rights that other Americans, especially white men, have in this society.

That is fine within a church, if that's what those believers want. But it is not fine, or even moral, in the rest of our society (schools, work, government, etc.). The rest of our society is governed by the Constitution, not the Bible (or Koran or any other religious book), and that Constitution guarantees all citizens equal rights -- no matter their sex, sexual preference, age, color, ethnicity, race, or any other reason a human can dream up to discriminate against someone else.

Believe what you want, but don't try to use that belief as a justification to discriminate against any of your fellow citizens.

The U.S. Is A Human Rights Violator

No nation is perfect, especially in the area of human rights. But in the past, the United States has been a nation that was better than most. I don't believe that is true any longer. After the attack on New York City on 9/11/2001, the Bush administration seemed to throw any pretense of respecting human rights out the window. They invaded two countries without justification, initiated a program of torturing prisoners, passed a law allowing the government to spy on Americans and others, held hundreds of prisoners with charges or the right to a fair trial, and began programs of assassination and cyber warfare.

Many of us had hoped that with the election of President Obama, these human rights violations would stop. But those hopes seem to have been in vain. The president has not only continued most of the Bush administration policies ignoring human rights, but has actually added drone attacks to the list. This is very disappointing, and I've been waiting for politicians to speak out on behalf of human rights, and a return to sanity of American policy. But it seems like politicians on both sides of the political spectrum now ascribe to the view that it's OK for this country to violate human rights -- and only poses a problem when other countries do the same.

Fortunately, there is an American politician who still believes in human rights -- former president Jimmy Carter. And he has now spoken out on this issue. Here is what Mr. Carter had to say in a NY Times op-ed piece a couple of days ago (and I agree with every word of it):

The United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights. 

Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation's violation of human rights has extended. This development began after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has been sanctioned and escalated by bipartisan executive and legislative actions, without dissent from the general public. As a result, our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues.

While the country has made mistakes in the past, the widespread abuse of human rights over the last decade has been a dramatic change from the past. With leadership from the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 as "the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." This was a bold and clear commitment that power would no longer serve as a cover to oppress or injure people, and it established equal rights of all people to life, liberty, security of person, equal protection of the law and freedom from torture, arbitrary detention or forced exile.

The declaration has been invoked by human rights activists and the international community to replace most of the world's dictatorships with democracies and to promote the rule of law in domestic and global affairs. It is disturbing that, instead of strengthening these principles, our government's counterterrorism policies are now clearly violating at least 10 of the declaration's 30 articles, including the prohibition against "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Recent legislation has made legal the president's right to detain a person indefinitely on suspicion of affiliation with terrorist organizations or "associated forces," a broad, vague power that can be abused without meaningful oversight from the courts or Congress (the law is currently being blocked by a federal judge). This law violates the right to freedom of expression and to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, two other rights enshrined in the declaration.

In addition to American citizens' being targeted for assassination or indefinite detention, recent laws havecanceled the restraints in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to allow unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications. Popular state laws permit detaining individuals because of their appearance, where they worship or with whom they associate.

Despite an arbitrary rule that any man killed by drones is declared an enemy terrorist, the death of nearby innocent women and children is accepted as inevitable. After more than 30 airstrikes on civilian homes this year in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai has demanded that such attacks end, but the practice continues in areas of Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen that are not in any war zone. We don't know how many hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in these attacks, each one approved by the highest authorities in Washington. This would have been unthinkable in previous times.

These policies clearly affect American foreign policy. Top intelligence and military officials, as well as rights defenders in targeted areas, affirm that the great escalation in drone attacks has turned aggrieved families toward terrorist organizations, aroused civilian populations against us and permitted repressive governments to cite such actions to justify their own despotic behavior.

Meanwhile, the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, now houses 169 prisoners. About half have been cleared for release, yet have little prospect of ever obtaining their freedom. American authorities have revealed that, in order to obtain confessions, some of the few being tried (only in military courts) have been tortured by waterboarding more than 100 times or intimidated with semiautomatic weapons, power drills or threats to sexually assault their mothers. Astoundingly, these facts cannot be used as a defense by the accused, because the government claims they occurred under the cover of "national security." Most of the other prisoners have no prospect of ever being charged or tried either.

At a time when popular revolutions are sweeping the globe, the United States should be strengthening, not weakening, basic rules of law and principles of justice enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But instead of making the world safer, America's violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends.

As concerned citizens, we must persuade Washington to reverse course and regain moral leadership according to international human rights norms that we had officially adopted as our own and cherished throughout the years. 

Jimmy Carter Opposes The War On Drugs

Jimmy Carter has always been one of our most honest politicians, and he is not afraid to take a position he believes is right -- even if that position might not be a popular one. And his latest position might not be too popular with either party in Washington. He has come out against the War on Drugs.

It's pretty obvious that the War on Drugs has been a miserable failure, even though over a trillion dollars has been wasted on it in the last 40 years. And after all that money was spent, drugs are just as plentiful as they ever were. But it's going to be hard to change the drug policy in this country -- because there are too many people on both sides of the law that are making far too much money by keeping the current policy in place.

Here is what President Carter had to say:

In an extraordinary new initiative announced earlier this month, the Global Commission on Drug Policy has made some courageous and profoundly important recommendations in a report on how to bring more effective control over the illicit drug trade. The commission includes the former presidents or prime ministers of five countries, a former secretary general of the United Nations, human rights leaders, and business and government leaders, including Richard Branson, George P. Shultz and Paul A. Volcker.

The report describes the total failure of the present global antidrug effort, and in particular America’s “war on drugs,” which was declared 40 years ago today. It notes that the global consumption of opiates has increased 34.5 percent, cocaine 27 percent and cannabis 8.5 percent from 1998 to 2008. Its primary recommendations are to substitute treatment for imprisonment for people who use drugs but do no harm to others, and to concentrate more coordinated international effort on combating violent criminal organizations rather than nonviolent, low-level offenders.

These recommendations are compatible with United States drug policy from three decades ago. In a message to Congress in 1977, I said the country should decriminalize the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, with a full program of treatment for addicts. I also cautioned against filling our prisons with young people who were no threat to society, and summarized by saying: “Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself.”

These ideas were widely accepted at the time. But in the 1980s President Ronald Reagan and Congress began to shift from balanced drug policies, including the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts, toward futile efforts to control drug imports from foreign countries.

This approach entailed an enormous expenditure of resources and the dependence on police and military forces to reduce the foreign cultivation of marijuana, coca and opium poppy and the production of cocaine and heroin. One result has been a terrible escalation in drug-related violence, corruption and gross violations of human rights in a growing number of Latin American countries.

The commission’s facts and arguments are persuasive. It recommends that governments be encouraged to experiment “with models of legal regulation of drugs ... that are designed to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens.” For effective examples, they can look to policies that have shown promising results in Europe, Australia and other places.

But they probably won’t turn to the United States for advice. Drug policies here are more punitive and counterproductive than in other democracies, and have brought about anexplosion in prison populations. At the end of 1980, just before I left office, 500,000 people were incarcerated in America; at the end of 2009 the number was nearly 2.3 million. There are 743 people in prison for every 100,000 Americans, a higher portion than in any other country and seven times as great as in Europe. Some 7.2 million people are either in prison or on probation or parole — more than 3 percent of all American adults!

Some of this increase has been caused by mandatory minimum sentencing and “three strikes you’re out” laws. But about three-quarters of new admissions to state prisons are for nonviolent crimes. And the single greatest cause of prison population growth has been the war on drugs, with the number of people incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses increasing more than twelvefold since 1980.

Not only has this excessive punishment destroyed the lives of millions of young people and their families (disproportionately minorities), but it is wreaking havoc on state and local budgets. Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pointed out that, in 1980, 10 percent of his state’s budget went to higher education and 3 percent to prisons; in 2010, almost 11 percent went to prisons and only 7.5 percent to higher education.

Maybe the increased tax burden on wealthy citizens necessary to pay for the war on drugs will help to bring about a reform of America’s drug policies. At least the recommendations of the Global Commission will give some cover to political leaders who wish to do what is right.

A few years ago I worked side by side for four months with a group of prison inmates, who were learning the building trade, to renovate some public buildings in my hometown of Plains, Ga. They were intelligent and dedicated young men, each preparing for a productive life after the completion of his sentence. More than half of them were in prison for drug-related crimes, and would have been better off in college or trade school.

To help such men remain valuable members of society, and to make drug policies more humane and more effective, the American government should support and enact the reforms laid out by the Global Commission on Drug Policy.

Jimmy Carter Finally Sees The Light

For many years, I have respected former President Jimmy Carter's tireless efforts in support of human rights all over the world. His work has been invaluable. That's one reason I've always been puzzled by his adherence to a religious sect that puts women in a second-class and inferior status. He has always been a Southern Baptist.

Southern Baptists, along with many other fundamentalist sects of christianity, teach that women should be subject to men, rather than being equals -- especially in marriage and in the church (no matter how knowledgeable or talented, a woman cannot be a minister). How can someone who believes in human rights and equal rights believe in such a teaching? They can't.

It seems that Carter has been struggling with this question himself, and has severed his ties with the Southern Baptist Convention. He calls his decision "an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service."

He goes on to say, "This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries.

At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities."

This was a courageous decision on the part of Mr. Carter. It is easy for an atheist like myself to see the inequity that many religions teach. But it is much harder for a believer, who remains a believer, to see the truth about the unfairness and inequity to be found in his own church. I applaud Mr. Carter for his action and for his honesty.

Mr. Carter has written an excellent essay detailing why he felt it necessary to disassociate himself with the Southern Baptist Convention. I urge you to read the entire essay. It's a moving appeal for the rights of women everywhere.

As Mr. Carter says, "It is time we had the courage to challenge these views."