White House Diary by Former President Jimmy Carter - Admission/Application Essay Example

no. Review of “White House Dairy” The book “White House Diary” by former president Jimmy Carter is a great read that gives insight into the life and presidency of Carter and its associated challenges. Carter was a great president who helped better the lives of Americans in many ways. However, Carter was also a very controversial person especially in the way he dealt with matters of certain degrees of sensitivity. In general, the book portrays Carter as an egoistic, ambitious, and know-it-all person who had trouble dealing with criticism and external pressure. Cater writes that he is not the type of person to easily accept criticism, reassess his actions and basically admit to having made a mistake (342). This personal characteristic is very evident in the book, especially in the parts concerning most of his critics. Carter refers to Scoop Jackson as someone who “acted like an ass”, considers Russell Long as waste of time, and thinks of Helmut Schmidt as a paranoid child respectively (123, 164, 439). In essence, this part of the book makes the reader doubt Carter’s leadership ability as a result of his inability to deal with criticism positively. Reading this part of the book makes it a bit frustrating and one wonders how a president can be that close minded. It is amazing how a thorough read of the book portrays Carter as a person who is very fond of passing judgments on others yet he cannot stand criticism directed at him. For example, Carter writes that Reagan is the type of person who does not seem to listen to anyone and that his thinking is mostly made up of a few memorized anecdotes and vignettes (513). Carter’s criticism of Begin as an individualistic person also shows how Carter fails to see such traits in himself but is very keen to notice them on others. In yet another section of the book, the reader is exposed to Carter’s close-mindedness and his inability handle criticism. The two traits are made evident when Carter writes about his poor relationship with the media because he was always cynical and suspicious of the press (528). Carter directly accuses the news media of deliberately giving him negative publicity and fails to give rational explanations as to why he received such unsympathetic press coverage. Instead of admitting his mistakes, Carter claims that the negative press was because of his refusal to provide humorous comments at annual media banquets (529). In a way, reading Carter’s admission of lack of humor in his media banquets reminds the reader of how serious and bring the book is, as it basically lacks a general sense of humor. A section of the book covers a very controversial topic which is in relation to the relationship between Carter and the American Jews. For example, Carter writes that the American Jewish community really disgusted him because of their refusal to vote for him even after trying so hard to convince them. As a result, Carter writes that he ended up alienating the American Jews throughout his presidency (485). The main reason for the voting pattern among the American Jews was that most of them viewed Carter as pro-Arab. This perception was born out of the decision by Carter’s UN ambassador to support the anti-Israeli resolution. This part of the book does nothing more than depict Carter as the typical politician who sidelines the people who did not vote for them, once in office. The book covers some of Carter’s most important contributions to the American society. In essence, Carter’s oversight of the Camp David Accords led to a bilateral agreement between Israel and Egypt in a bid to restore peace in the Middle East. However, Carter’s writing in relation to the Egyptian and Israeli leaders is very biased. For instance, Carter considers Egypt’s Anwar Sadat as a more rational leader who was more concerned with the likely impact of the conflict on the Arab community and the world at large (213). On the other hand, Menachem Begin, the Israeli Premier at the time, is portrayed as an individualistic person who spent most of the time arguing about what was right for his people as opposed to the wellbeing of the entire region (ibid).It is fascinating to read how Carter considers Begin as the main force working against the peace process in the Middle East. Although, going through the entire book, one gets the feeling that Anwar Sadat was the only leader who won the respect of Carter in and outside of the United States. The riveting factor in this part of the read is that Carter seems to actively anti-Israeli even lamenting about the attempts by the latter to influence the American foreign policy. The book provides insight into and addresses the issue of healthcare and the reason as to why comprehensive health care continues to evade Americans to date. Carter does not mince his words as he lays the blame on the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, who he accuses of blocking Carter’s legislation in the late 1970s. Carter claims that he simply could not understand what Kennedy was talking about, and that that left him mystified (306). Such an allegation seems like more of a scapegoat for Carter’s inability to convince senate that his legislation would work, thus making it easier for Carter to blame it on his opponent. In the afterword, Carter does, however, offer a more logical explanation for the lack of comprehensive health care in America. Carter blames insurance companies as well as medical and pharmaceutical manufacturers and suppliers for the health care problem, stating that these companies have also denied bill Clinton and barrack Obama the opportunity to legislate comprehensive health care (531).Considering that the afterword was written in2010, this admission shows that Carter’s thinking is no longer clogged by political rivalry and that he is now able to analyze issues from a logical and neutral point of view. It is fascinating to read how incapable carte was of reading the general mood of the electorate, especially towards the 1980 elections. When Carter lost these elections, he blamed his defeat on the Iranian hostage crisis. However, in the book, Carter does not mention any other contributing factors to his landslide defeat in favor of Ronald Reagan. However, other factors such as Carter’s failure to relate well with members of the congress also contributed to the defeat. It can also be argued that Carter might have pushed off most members of the congress as a result of having too many legislations at the floor of congress. In addition, reading Carter’s work makes one realize that he was more of a control-freak who wanted to run state house like his personal home. The fact that Carter wanted personally to handle almost every task in the white house and government in general led to a lot of resentment among other people charged with such responsibilities. All these factors did not escape the media and in turn press coverage was very critical and led to significant drops in Carter’s popularity in the general population. What lacks in this part of the book is may be an afterthought by Carter concerning why Iran agreed to release the hostages soon after Reagan became president. Carter does, however, state that the day the hostages were released was one of the happiest moments of his life(513). Although the book does cover serious and important events in the history of America and how Carter dealt with them as president, it contains a lot of petty issues discussed to great detail. Sometimes too much detail about the non-important issues makes the read a bore. For example, Carter writes about the time when Vladimir Horowitz was set to plat a recital at the white house and Carter practically helped set the stage by getting on his hands and knees and helping lay the rugs (174). Not sure of whether Carter included this part so as to appear as a down-to-earth person, one would think that he was just too preoccupied with petty issues. In general, the book provides important insight into what it entails to lead a country and more importantly gives historical lessons to the reader about the political environment of the 1970s and the factors that shaped political relations. Carter does a commendable job of writing about issues, both local and global that affected people in the 1970s such as the Iran hostage crisis and the Middle East conflict. However, the book is too long and tedious to read especially because Carter lacks a general sense of humor thus making the book too serious. In addition, Carter’s work becomes a little bit dull to read especially when he includes non-relevant occasions such as helping spread the rugs of the musical room. The book succeeds in portraying Carter as a know-it-all person who considers anyone with a different opinion as lacking in knowledge and being unnecessarily difficult. However, the reader should do well to remember and appreciate that most people do not criticize themselves in their diaries but rather write their honest opinions of people and situations. As such, Carter should be commended for being honest enough to allow his dairy to be published without making any alterations to his original writings. In the end, the book allows the reader to understand that even presidents are normal people who have the right to think, feel and have emotions just like everyone else. Work Cited Carter, Jimmy. White House Diary. New York: FSG Adult. 2010. Print. Read More