Politics /

Former President Jimmy Carter Confronts January 6th in New York Times Op-Ed

The 97-year old, former president, addressed an impending collapse of democracy that has resulted from a divide in the nation's leadership

On Wednesday, former President Jimmy Carter cautioned that democracy is being jeopardized in the US, saying that “our great nation now teeters on the brink of a widening abyss.”

A New York Times op-ed published on the day before the anniversary of the January 6 insurrection, Carter issued a direct warning about the state of democracy in the divided nation. 

He said, “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.”

Last January, Carter joined the three other living former Presidents, Barack ObamaGeorge W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, in decrying the protestors who breached the Capitol. The violent protest occurred as Congress held a session to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. 

Carter said that he hoped the violent protest “would shock the nation into addressing the toxic polarization that threatens our democracy.”

He went on to say that “politicians have leveraged the distrust they have created to enact laws that empower partisan legislatures to intervene in election processes.” 

He continued his critique of lawmakers, saying, “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 has become dangerously fragile at home,” said Carter. 

After his presidency, he created the Carter Center, a non-profit which monitors free elections worldwide.

In his Op-Ed, Carter offered five points to secure elections in the United States: 

  • American citizens must agree on constitutional norms and respect each other despite political differences
  • The country should push for election reforms to ensure access to and confidence in elections
  • The country should resist polarization
  • The country should reject violence in politics
  • Disinformation must be addressed.

“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,” he concluded.

*For corrections please email [email protected]*

7 responses to “Former President Jimmy Carter Confronts January 6th in New York Times Op-Ed”

  1. DeeH_2_T_Moon says:

    You know Jimmy has to be smiling to himself every time he falls asleep. “Oh yes, I have lived long enough to give up my place as the absolute worst president of the USA!”

  2. pandusa says:

    Ah yes, I remember Pres. Jimmy Carter. Interest rate 13.625 when I bought my first starter home. I have NEVER forgotten. Didn’t even have to look it up.

  3. beijingbiden says:

    Ahh Jimmy Carter, the man who gave up the key strategic choke point in the Western Hemisphere (Panama Canal), the man who forced the Shah of Iran to back off on those hippie Islamic protesters leading to the Islamic State of Iran and over a year of Americans living in hell and then the cherry on top when Carter realized he was going to lose he set up Operation Eagle Claw to rescue the hostages that was so half baked his own Secretary of State quit before it was launched and 8 US service members were murdered by Carter for his political sake. Yup we should listen to this complete and utter failure of a man. He’s a leftoid through and through. He could build infinity houses but he will never give those 8 families their men back.

    This Carter stance is where you can see the leftoid coming through:

    “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.”

    Hey, there were problems with the election, but shut up and take the results. Fuck You Carter.

    “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.”

    Disinformation is information the Democrats don’t like. We’ve already seen “fact checkers” from facebook admit in court its political opinion and not based on facts. We’ve seen Pfizer influence Twitter by having a Pfizer board member sit on Twitters boards.

    Fuck Carter, he’s old, out of touch and dangerously incompetetent.

  4. ZedS says:

    Carter wouldn’t even be mentioned by the dems if he didn’t oppose Trump openly. It was his own recommendations on election security that the elephants are wanting to work on and the asses have refused to work on, but because he always defaults to the ass’s side, so he’s clearly not a true believer in American principles.

  5. ellie says:

    I was young when Carter was in, but I always thought he was a nice person, a horrible president, but a good person. Last year sealed his fate with me. No respect, NONE.

  6. Rawdog says:

    I’m NOT going to listen to ANYTHING this fucking GLOBALIST says. That POS PROUDLY talked about how he committed treason against the US when he was president by illegally sending our jobs to China (go to Shenzhen and Macau, see how many Jimmy Carter statues & buildings there are).

    That Traitor only wants “unity” on woke fucking Dumbocrat terms.

  7. unspecialnoob says:

    5 valid points, Mr President. Tell me, though, how do we reconcile the people? One side generally seems open to debate and compromise, the other will go so far as to use government institutions to punish political adversaries.

    If those that are willing to compromise are under threat of punishment (regardless of political faction), what compromise can be made? It seems they have a binary choice: lay down and give up or be just as uncompromising themselves.

    I think the real answer is to restrict the powers that the government can wield. It minimizes the harm that the uncompromising can do while offering the maximum freedom to the people to act according to their conscious. The only problem with that is the uncompromising are in control of the government and will never limit their own power.