Brooks on Books: What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President?" by Kevin Mattson

If you're one of the millions of people that knows/thinks/believes/assumes Jimmy Carter was a terrible President, I'm not gonna try to change your opinion. But this book might surprise you a bit. Carter may still have been a terrible prez, but maybe for different reasons.

Mattson is apparently (judging from his resume) a left-leaning writer, and his book is sympathetic to Carter but not biased or partisan. Included in his subtitle is the phrase "The Speech That Should Have Changed the Country," but this is isn't a left-wing propaganda job. The goal here is to examine the infamous address to the nation in which Carter used the word "malaise" and supposedly torpedoed his political future. The focus is not on ideology but on process--that is, how Carter himself squandered the momentum this moment gave him (that's right, momentum; read on) through his own mismanagement, hence the poor reputation of a speech that "should have" changed the United States.

Mattson lays out the particulars of the speech (also presenting the entire text in the back for your convenience), but examines it in context, showing what was going on in the country before it and what, in fact, instigated it. He also takes us through the aftermath of the infamous oratory and in so doing challenges much of the conventional wisdom surrounding it.

I was born in the seventies, but I had a pretty happy toddler life and was unaware of what a drag it was for much of the country much of the time. Mattson's book details the problems Carter and the USA faced: sputtering economy, gas shortages, hostage crisis in Iran...yeah, it wasn't always a fun time outside of the discotheque. Is it any wonder Carter used the word "malaise" in a speech to illustrate how bummed America was?

But while many people believe that people hated Carter for committing the political sin of, like, bringing everybody down, man, contrasting Jimmy with the sunny "Morning in America" reputation of Ronald Reagan, Mattson shows that the truth is much more complex. For example--and this is kind of a big thing--Carter never used the word "malaise" in the speech. It was the media reaction that pushed that word into the discussion and forever linked it to Carter's televised address. Also, Carter's approval ratings actually went up, and the majority of the reaction was positive to Carter's attempt to link honest assessment of some of the country's problems with a positive assessment about the chance to beat the energy crisis.

Mattson convincingly asserts that it wasn't until the media started discussing the politics of the speech, not the substance, that the message got lost. More importantly, Carter made the disastrous move of axing a good chunk of his cabinet just days after the speech, a move which made an already questionable chief executive look out of control at best, incompetent or even unhinged at worst, and this, according to Mattson, is what sunk the presidency and killed the chance of the speech having lasting success.

Whether you agree or disagree with the ideology in here--Mattson isn't writing a policy paper, but he is telling the story from the Democratic POV, and he is clearly sympathetic to Carter-- you'll be impressed by the research Mattson has done and his skill at telling this story. The level of detail brings life to this time in American history and illuminates underchronicled aspects of it (at least I think so). The book is worthwhile if only for its fascinating account of an extraordinary retreat Carter hosted at Camp David before the speech, a kind of intellectual powow where notables like Jesse Jackson and a young Bill Clinton showed up to share ideas.

Mattson has written an entertaining, provocative account of what he demonstrates is a misunderstood but critical moment in American history. I highly recommend it for readers with an interest in history and/or politics.