The soft focus, benevolent read of the presidential museum

Human memory has a way of softening over time. Fran Hawthorne explains how this may benefit Barack Obama.

Every US president starting with Herbert Hoover has an official museum and library dedicated to commemorating his life story and the accomplishments of his administration.

Already, Illinois, Hawaii and New York are competing to host Barack Obama’s archive. That is likely to be a complex history to knit together, just like that of Jimmy Carter, one of his predecessors.

Elected in 1976 in a burst of optimism as a plain-spoken antidote to the Watergate scandal that had forced Richard Nixon to resign, Mr Carter lost his re-election bid four years later to Ronald Reagan after a tenure that is still seen as a failure. His greatest success – bringing together then-Egyptian president Anwar Sadat and then-Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin to sign a peace accord at Camp David in 1978 – has been overshadowed by his disputed handling of the takeover of the US embassy in Iran in November 1979, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that December, the continuing energy crisis and other controversies.

With President Obama today facing similar charges of weakness in foreign policy, the way history treats Mr Carter’s tenure – and the way his museum tries to shape that image – may have some bearing on Mr Obama’s legacy.

In fact, the official Jimmy Carter Library and Museum has chosen to recast the 39th US president more as a post-presidential model than as a model president. Like the other presidential memorials, the Carter building, set in a wooded grove just outside of downtown Atlanta, Georgia, begins with heartwarming stories of his family, hard work and success against tough odds.

In Mr Carter’s case, that means toiling on his father’s peanut farm without electricity until he was a teenager, then acceptance to the US naval academy at Annapolis, Maryland. Dismissed as a mere “peanut farmer from Georgia”, he defeated far more well-known candidates in the presidential contest. There are also the usual hagiographic mementos, including Carter’s childhood high chair and a college report card for his wife, Rosalynn.

The biggest single display is devoted to the Camp David accords. In a video interview, the former president describes each step of the 13 days as he alternately wooed and pressured the Egyptian and Israeli leaders.

By contrast, there are only two brief mentions of the 1979 Iranian revolution and the holding of 53 American hostages for 444 days – one of the most traumatic events in US history. The museum’s official film is a bit misleading in declaring that “We got the hostages released.” Actually, historians debate whether it was Mr Carter’s negotiations or the fear of much tougher terms from incoming President Reagan that prompted Tehran to free the hostages just minutes before Mr Carter’s term ended.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan merits even less attention. The museum notes that Mr Carter, in response, banned the export of most grain to the USSR and boycotted the Olympic Games in Moscow that summer. Ignored, however, are the angry backlash from farmers, athletes and politicians.

Of course, it is hardly surprising that a museum dedicated to any particular person would emphasise the achievements and whitewash the rest, even if Mr Carter had promised to be a different, more honest political leader. At the Nixon museum, the Watergate exhibit was still “under construction” when my family visited, more than three decades after he resigned in 1974. The most unusual aspect of the Carter memorial is that probably one-third of the entire display is devoted to his activities after he left office. Through the Carter Center, the former president has worked to eradicate the disease of river blindness, end discrimination against women, monitor disputed elections and help other human rights causes. These efforts are far more admired than almost anything he did as president – and he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

Human memory has a way of softening over time and it will probably do the same for Mr Obama. Americans have gained renewed admiration for the once-unpopular Harry Truman, and liberals are rediscovering the virtues of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. In light of today’s traumas in the Middle East, Mr Carter’s achievement at Camp David – even his handling of the Iranian and Afghan crises – could eventually be seen as equal to his post-presidential humanitarian accomplishments.

Fran Hawthorne is a US-based author and journalist who specialises in covering the intersection of business, finance and social policy