> I know he wasn't popular in the US which I don't really understand.
Note, these are not my opinions, but I am going to seek to answer this based on the things I have read on him.
In short, the general opinion is that he was a weak, pitiful, activist president. His overtures toward peace, anti-imperialism, humanitarian causes were laden with activism rhetoric that one would normally use if they were outside the structures of power. Once one is within the structure of power, then one is expected to speak less, and do more. Consider a parallel story of outspoken-activist-turned-president Theodore Roosevelt, speak softly and carry a big stick and all that. Carter spoke loudly and forgot his stick. This, combined with a perceived lack of policy and agenda, on top of a time of various crises, made him look rather unfit for the job.
Again, please remember that this is the summary of a general stance many hold. I was not yet alive and so cannot necessarily speak to the zeitgeist of the time, firsthand.
My personal opinion is that, if you squint, his presidency is a lot like that of Trump, in that his presidency lacked a focus and tried, and rather failed, to react to events at the time. And of course, rather different in that he was not a corrupt buffoon. To expand on this, I actually think that if we waved a magic what-if wand, and got Carter today, he would be hailed as a fantastic president, if only by comparison, so you know, context matters.
I think this a great summary. Carter is someone who, when looking back, seems very ahead of his time in his views. It's just that presidents are not assessed in a vacuum, and unfortunately he was not perceived as the president America needed at that point in its history.
You're right, I think this was probably a major factor in why he was voted in (I wasn't alive at the time so this would just be a guess from my side). I think the big problem with Carter is that he was what you could call a "peace-time president" in a period where America was basically still very much at war. What America needed was something closer to a Churchill, and they essentially got it in the form of Reagan later.
I think Carter would've been assessed very differently if he'd been president in the 90s or early 2000s.
>My personal opinion is that, if you squint, his [Carter's] presidency is a lot like that of Trump
The parallel goes further. Both of these presidents initiated a very different economic policy, and this was expanded on by the succeeding president despite the successor being a standard bearer of the other party:
* Carter initiated deregulation and appointed Volcker to the Fed.
* Trump initiated China tariffs and decoupling, and was leery of trade deals in general.
Another parallel is the unique foreign policy both had compared to their 'ordinary' successor. e.g. I don't think any other President would have been so supportive of Mugabe like Carter was.
Note, these are not my opinions, but I am going to seek to answer this based on the things I have read on him.
In short, the general opinion is that he was a weak, pitiful, activist president. His overtures toward peace, anti-imperialism, humanitarian causes were laden with activism rhetoric that one would normally use if they were outside the structures of power. Once one is within the structure of power, then one is expected to speak less, and do more. Consider a parallel story of outspoken-activist-turned-president Theodore Roosevelt, speak softly and carry a big stick and all that. Carter spoke loudly and forgot his stick. This, combined with a perceived lack of policy and agenda, on top of a time of various crises, made him look rather unfit for the job.
Again, please remember that this is the summary of a general stance many hold. I was not yet alive and so cannot necessarily speak to the zeitgeist of the time, firsthand.
My personal opinion is that, if you squint, his presidency is a lot like that of Trump, in that his presidency lacked a focus and tried, and rather failed, to react to events at the time. And of course, rather different in that he was not a corrupt buffoon. To expand on this, I actually think that if we waved a magic what-if wand, and got Carter today, he would be hailed as a fantastic president, if only by comparison, so you know, context matters.