Religion was a surprisingly tricky issue for President James Earl Carter. In short, Carter had to deal with what his chief political advisor Hamilton Jordan once memorably called the “weirdo factor” (Morris 1996, 5). Carter was a Southern Baptist, born again and an evangelical (though, significantly, not a fundamentalist).5 These were new things to the presidential politics of the 1970s.
Evangelical Protestantism had been a significant influence in American politics up until the 1920s. In fact, evangelicals played a key role in a number of important social movements, including the fight for the abolition of slavery. But they mainly retreated from the political arena following major defeats on Prohibition and the teaching of evolution (Wilcox and Larson 2006, 35-41).
Indeed, the battle over evolution looms as a turning point of sorts. Many Christians passionately defended the Biblical account of creation found in Genesis which describes how God creates the Earth in six days, making the first man, Adam, out of the dust, and the first woman, Eve, out of one of Adam’s ribs. Evolution obviously is a major contradiction and many evangelicals were further troubled by the social implications of Darwin’s survival of the fittest theories. As a result, the evangelical community reacted to the spread of these ideas by
5 Although sharing certain beliefs in common with many other evangelicals, fundamentalists are more likely to
reject modern culture, to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and to value separation from other faiths (Wald and Calhoun-Brown 2011, 229).
introducing anti-evolution bills in twenty different state legislatures in the 1920s, though most were not adopted.
The most famous moment in this crusade was the Scopes “monkey” trial, held in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925. John Scopes, a high school science teacher, had been convinced to stand trial in a case intended to test the constitutionality of Tennessee’s anti-evolution statute.
Dayton’s civic boosters eagerly sought the opportunity to play host, feeling that such a trial could generate favorable publicity for their shrinking township. The high point was the showdown between Clarence Darrow, the preeminent attorney of the time and Scopes’ defense, and William Jennings Bryan, the Great Commoner and former Democratic presidential candidate who had been called to the stand as a Bible expert. Darrow sought to undermine the position of Biblical literalism with his questioning. In this sense, he succeeded as Bryan was unable to explain various inconsistencies and at one point even admitted that the days in the creation story may actually have represented ages.
At the same time, recent research has conclusively proved that it would be a mistake to cast the trial as an unmitigated disaster for Bryan or the fundamentalist cause in general (Larson 1997). Bryan was buoyed by his performance and was preparing to undertake a great public speaking tour were it not for his death a few days after the verdict. Moreover, book publishers responded to the circus in Dayton by voluntarily removing references to evolution from their biology texts. It was not until the launch of Sputnik, bringing with it a new U.S. emphasis on scientific education, that the theory reappeared in the country’s classrooms.
burned by the derision that events like the Scopes trial had generated. When combined with the failure of Prohibition, many simply decided they were better off sitting on the sidelines (Wald and Calhoun-Brown 2011, 202-204). In the middle of the century, evangelicals thus mostly withdrew from politics in what historians have termed the “great reversal.” They would only begin to remerge in the 1970s when certain local movements- a fight against textbooks in Kanawha County, WV, a battle against a gay rights ordinance in Dade County, FL- had demonstrated their unrealized political potential.
Carter therefore emerged as a major political player in conjunction with the beginnings of this wider evangelical movement. Although he had publicly professed his faith by the age of eleven and had been ordained as a deacon in 1958, Carter had not been particularly devout during his early life. Carter called his time in the Navy a “dormant phase” in his religious life (Carter 2002, 23). Partly he had struggled to reconcile religious teachings with the technical training he had received as an engineer (Morris 2009, 324). However, a third place finish in a 1966 Georgia gubernatorial primary plunged Carter into a deep depression and prompted him to reassess his values. Carter struggled to understand how God could let Lester Maddox, an avowed segregationist best known for brandishing an ax handle in front of his restaurant, defeat him (Carter 2002, 202). Carter turned to his Christian faith for solace but found little at first. He was particularly unsettled by a sermon he had heard that asked “If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” Carter’s answer troubled him. “Defending myself against the charge of being a Christian wouldn’t be hard,” Carter
Thanksgiving and Christmas seasons, I had rarely associated with the really poor citizens of our community…As far as my church membership was concerned, there were obvious social and financial advantages… All in all, there was little evidence that I was anything other than a lukewarm follower of Christ” (208-209).
As a result of these revelations Carter was “born again.” He took a new interest in the Bible, embarked on two domestic missions, attended multiple religious conferences and even organized the showing of a Billy Graham film in Americus, GA (Morris 2009, 325; Smith 2006, 294-295).
As a candidate, Carter had initially been reluctant to discuss the evolution of his religious beliefs. That changed following an interview his sister, Ruth Carter Stapleton, gave to the Washington Post in March of 1976. Stapleton was herself somewhat of a curious figure. She ran an “inner healing” ministry that rather impractically tried to combine the insights of both psychology (based on her thirty hours of graduate study) and spirituality in attempt to heal an individual’s emotional wounds. In addition to discussing her own practice, Stapleton recounted to the Post in some detail the events of her brother’s born again experience (MacPherson 1976). Stapleton recalled walking through the woods with Carter after his defeat in 1966. Carter asked his sister what made her faith different from his. Stapleton told the interviewer:
I said, ‘Jimmy, through my hurt and pain I finally got so bad off I had to forget everything I was. What it amounts to in religious terms is total commitment. I belong to Jesus, everything I am.’ He said, ‘Ruth, that’s what I want.’ So we went through everything he would be willing to give up. Money was no problem, nor friends, nor family. Then, I asked, ‘What about all political ambitions?’ He said, ‘Ruth! You know I want to be governor. I would use it for the people!’ I said, ‘No, Jimmy.’
But he really meant it and became connected with part-time religious work. So he went to Pennsylvania and New York (on a Baptist missionary tour for less than a year). Jimmy’s a Baptist and to commit your life, Baptists think you have to go off and be a missionary somewhere.
The Post dispatched another reporter to confirm this story with the candidate. Carter admitted that Ruth’s account was “basically accurate.” And since the cat was now out of the bag, he proceeded to expand on Ruth’s comments at a fundraiser later that same evening. Carter spoke to his donors of a “deeply profound religious experience.” He said, “I recognized for the first time that I lacked something very precious- a complete commitment to Christ, a presence of the Holy Spirit in my life in a more profound and personal way. And since then I’ve had an inner peace and inner conviction and assurance that transformed my life for the better” (Witcover 1976). In a subsequent speech, Ruth said that Jimmy had broken down and cried during his reaffirmation of faith (Carter 1984, 66).
Presidents, and presidential candidates, simply did not talk nor act this way. Many Americans had little idea what any of this meant. As one network anchor felt compelled to say in a broadcast, “Incidentally, we’ve checked this out. Being ‘born again’ is not a bizarre
experience of the voice of God from the mountaintop. It’s a fairly common experience known to millions of Americans- especially if you’re Baptist.” (Balmer 2008, 80). Although the anchor was right, Carter nonetheless had to be careful to manage the outside world’s perceptions. Not only did he risk appearing strange to the American public, but his certain faith gave him an air of self-righteousness that his opponents often exploited at the first hint of hypocrisy (Hargrove
1988, 5).6
Sometimes, Carter fell short in pursuit of this goal. Perhaps the most infamous example was his late September 1976 interview with Playboy magazine. Although many esteemed Americans had been interviewed in the magazine’s pages, it is hard to understand why, exactly, Carter consented to the piece. It was a moment like when Bill Clinton discussed the pressing boxers vs. briefs issue with MTV news.7 In trying to make the point that he did not believe himself “better” than anyone else because of his religiosity, Carter stumbled. He said:
I try not to commit a deliberate sin. I recognize that I’m going to do it anyhow, because I’m human and I’m tempted. And Christ set almost impossible standards for us. Christ said, ‘I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust in his heart has already committed adultery.’
I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognizes that I will do- and I have done it- and God forgives me for it. But that doesn’t mean that I condemn someone who not only looks on a woman with lust but who leaves his wife and shacks up with somebody out of wedlock.
Christ says, Don’t consider yourself better than someone else because one guy screws a whole bunch of women while the other guy is loyal to his wife. The guy who is loyal to his wife ought not to be condescending or proud because of the relative degrees of sinfulness (Ribuffo 1989, 145-146) This was the quintessential example of how his devout faith could land Carter in hot water. His comments were either laughable or downright upsetting to nearly everyone. The Playboy interview finally convinced many secular voters that Carter’s faith truly was a serious concern and his comfortable lead over Ford disappeared in the aftermath of its publication. Yet
6
A reporter once asked Carter: “Do you have any doubts? About yourself? About God? About life?” Carter’s answer: “I can’t think of any.” See Katz (1984, 130).
7
evangelicals were not pleased, either. As the Rev. Bailey Smith pointed out, “shacks up” and “screws” were not exactly “good Baptist” words (146).
More often than not, though, when it came to religion caution prevailed for Carter. According to Smith’s (2006, 296) exhaustive research, as president, Carter made fewer explicit references to the Bible or to his own faith than most other presidents, including Lincoln,
Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan. And he would typically side-step opportunities to inject religion into the discussion of public policy issues. When a Polish journalist asked him in December of 1977 how his evangelical principles helped him solve problems, he refused to give an example. When in March of 1979 he was asked on what scriptural basis he supported the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), Carter responded that although he sought guidance from the Bible, his position was in no way based on its wisdom (298). Carter continued to be visible in his religious practices- he taught Sunday school class fourteen times as president- but there would be no repeat of his 1976 public self-examination (Bourne 1997, 377).
It was not just the “weirdo factor” that explained this reticence. One reason Carter avoiding talking about religion was because of his religion. Baptists are, in general, some of the foremost defenders of the doctrine of separation of church and state. Their commitment to this ideal is in many respects a legacy of the denomination’s history. In colonial New England and Virginia, Baptists were disadvantaged in conflicts with the established churches. This
experience made many early Baptists leading advocates for religious liberty (Brackney 2006, 39- 42).
senator, Carter was practically alone in his opposition to a bill that stated all Georgians were free to worship God as they saw fit. Carter felt that the bill’s presumption of God’s existence
violated the rights of atheists (Morris 2009, 325). As Governor of Georgia, Carter put an end to the religious services that had been held every morning in the state house. He also opposed the state’s “blue laws” that banned the sale of alcohol on Sundays (Glad 1980, 333). As President, he declared his personal opposition to abortion, and did refuse to support the use of federal funds to pay for it, but at the same time he promised to uphold, and did not seek to overturn, Roe v Wade. He consistently opposed school prayer and fought against tuition tax credits for parochial schools. He resisted regular meetings with religious groups and paid little attention to their concerns in order to avoid any appearances of favoritism (Smith 2006, 307-308). He also reneged on a promise to hire evangelicals for his White House staff. As a consequence, Carter had strained relations with most major religious leaders who would then abandon him in droves for the more responsive Ronald Reagan in 1980 (Bourne 1997, 466-468).
If you asked him, Carter would go so far as to deny his very role as a spiritual leader. At a February 18, 1978 town hall in Nashua, NH, a high school student named Bruce Prevost asked the President if he would help America repent for the country’s past immorality. Carter fumbled with his answer a bit, but he did demonstrate a precise understanding of the relationship between his faith and that of the country he led. Carter responded, “Well, my own religious faith is one that’s much more personal… I don’t consider myself to be the spiritual leader of this country. I’m the political leader. I have a right, I think, and a duty to be frank with the American people about my own belief. And I’m not a priest nor a bishop nor someone who, you know, fills a
religious pulpit and is authorized nor asked to repent for the whole country” (Carter 1978b). All of this- Carter’s political complications with respect to religion, his reluctance to employ religious rhetoric, his reflexive commitment to the separation of church and state- makes the case of his energy policy campaign incredibly interesting.
Carter began his term as president personally committed to resolving the country’s energy problems. The price of foreign oil had doubled since 1973’s Yom Kippur War, from $6 to $12 a barrel, and at the same time the U.S. had come to depend on outside sources for around 50% of its total supply (Kaufman 1993, 32). Fuel shortages ravaged the country during the winter of 1976 as schools and factories nationwide were shuttered due to the inadequate
availability of natural gas. Carter knew the solution to the shortages rested in increasing the cost of energy so as to discourage waste while likewise incentivizing the development of new
sources. But these higher costs could not be so extreme as to invite a recession and nor could the oil companies be seen as unduly profiting from the hardships of the American people. That was the challenge.
Carter released his first energy plan in April of 1977. The main elements of the President’s proposal were a variety of new taxes- on domestic oil production, on gas consumption over stated targets, on low fuel-efficiency cars and trucks, etc. Part of the tax revenue would be rebated to the public in the form of energy assistance for low-income citizens. The plan tilted more towards increasing conservation than it did towards encouraging
production.
had been drafted by Carter’s energy advisor, James Schlesinger, in almost total secrecy. When printed, the bill was five phonebooks thick (Morris 1996, 254). Even the administration could not quite get a grasp on what they were trying to accomplish; they had to set up twenty four separate legislative teams, each responsible for lobbying for a different aspect of the plan (Katz 1984, 100). The House and Senate were understandably flummoxed by Carter’s proposal and found themselves unable to resolve fundamental differences over the legislation in 1977,
postponing action until the next session. A dispute over the question of natural gas deregulation continued to hold the program up throughout almost all of 1978.
After eighteen months, Carter’s package finally did pass in October 1978 but the final law was hardly as the President had originally envisioned it. The bill now emphasized deregulation and tax credits, whereas Carter’s initial proposal was centered on spurring conservation via taxation. Some of his taxes, such as the crude oil equalization tax and the standby gas tax, were abandoned all together. As Katz (1984, 111) notes, “The bill’s success could only be measured in terms of its overall significance- ideologically and emotionally- not as a presidential victory or defeat.”
Perhaps then it is not a surprise that the legislation was mostly unsuccessful in achieving its aims. The bill’s flaws comprise some of the explanation, but the Iranian revolution was to blame as well. Domestic unrest brought Iran’s oil production practically to a halt, severely impacting the world’s supply. The U.S. only imported 5% of its oil from Iran so the seriousness of the situation was not immediately recognized (133). The OPEC countries capitalized on the turmoil, however, by raising the price of their oil by as much as 17% (Kaufman 1993, 136). The
resulting oil shortage affected the entire country.
It is hard for someone who did not live through it to imagine, but by mid-May of 1979 motorists regularly waited an hour or more to reach the pumps. Some stations reported lines of up to a mile long. Many were forced to close on Sunday or to shorten their hours in order to conserve enough gas until their next delivery. The Washington Post would print daily consumer guides listing the hours that certain pumps would be open and the maximum purchases each station would allow (see, for instance, McCombs and Frankel 1979).
The stations, moreover, were volatile locations, with fist fights and gun battles occasionally breaking out as many people reached the end of their patience. One man was burned alive in an attempt to siphon gas with an electric pump. Another attacked a pregnant woman who was mistakenly accused of cutting the line (Mattson 2009, 65). A gas station attendant had his ankle snapped by an angry customer. Another was attacked with a machete (110).
It was in this context that President Carter unveiled what he termed “phase two” of his energy policy. 50% of America’s oil still originated from domestic sources. But 70% of the oil from these reservoirs was subject to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), which mandated price ceilings ranging from about $5.50 to $12.65 a barrel as compared to a