Speech resonates years later

Thirty years ago this week, with America in the grips of high inflation, rising unemployment and an oil crisis, President Jimmy Carter went before the American people and gave his "crisis of confidence" speech. In it, he said the country was facing "a fundamental threat to American democracy," caused by the public's lack of faith in leaders and public institutions. He beseeched the nation to repair its battered spirit and to believe in the power of American ingenuity and will. Unfortunately for Carter, that speech caused many to believe that it was the president himself suffering from a crisis of confidence. Many consider it to have been the nail in his political coffin. The next year, he lost his re-election bid to Ronald Reagan. But author and Ohio University history professor Kevin Mattson thinks the speech, the subject of his new book, should be viewed differently. Mattson argues in "What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President?" that the speech should have changed the country for the better. Here, Mattson talks about politics, the Gettysburg Address and why he thinks disco still sucks.

Q: Of all the things you could have written about, what drew you to the "malaise" speech, a word Carter never actually uttered in the speech?

A: I was astounded the first time I taught the [history] class, because I walked in expecting the students to say what is the usual interpretation of the speech; that Carter is blaming Americans for all the problems that were really his own. But they had a much more positive reaction. They liked Carter saying to American citizens, "I expect something of you." They liked the tone. They liked the sense that this guy was actually telling them the truth. And it was that reaction that made me think there's something really going on here.

Q: I remember watching that speech, and I have a vague remembrance of feeling like I'd just watched a Billy Graham crusade. "You lazy, overindulgent, oil-dependent, vain people: Repent before it's too late!" But, in a weird way, that was OK.

A: And that's exactly why it resonated, in an odd way. I think there's something embedded in the American character, and in America religion specifically, that that actually appeals to.

Q: Now the speech could be called the "Dr. Phil speech."

A: (Laughs) In the sense that it had a psychological or therapeutic sense to it? Yeah. Carter was informed by a lot of that general soul searching that was going on in the '70s. We make fun of the '70s, and it's easy to do so when you look at the fashions and the popularity of disco music. But, on the other hand, there was a seriousness to that time, a feeling that there really was a need for Americans to look inside themselves and think more seriously about ... the state of their culture. I think Carter knew that was going on and I think he kind of drew into that.

Q: You call it one of the great American speeches, while not as poetic as the "I Have a Dream" speech or as healing as the Gettysburg Address. But others saw it as a sermon from a man who seemed flummoxed as to how to lead during a crisis.

A: What made me think it was a great speech was that it was terribly honest. I really don't believe Jimmy Carter was the sort of guy who said, "I'm just going to go and blame all the problems on the American people so I can shirk my own responsibility." He lists out in the front of the speech a number of criticisms of his own leadership style, but [he says], "I'm not willing to let the American people off the hook either. . . . There's something wrong with our way of life. There's something wrong with our consumer culture, and it has gotten in the way of us facing a very pressing problem, which is solving the energy crisis." It's in the honesty of linking that moral and civic crisis in America to the energy crisis that makes it a crucial speech.

Q: His poll numbers went up 11 percent the day after the speech, but then he crushed the blossom by firing his Cabinet.

A: (Laughs) That's the tragedy of Jimmy Carter. I wouldn't say that, if he had just ridden the 11 percent rise and not fired the Cabinet, he would have won re-election. But certainly to [fire the Cabinet] two days later and completely shatter the confidence the American people may have had in his leadership, it was a tragic act on his part.

Q: OK, if he hadn't botched it, what effect do you feel the speech could have had in changing the tone within the nation?

A: The mail that went into the White House following the speech showed that there were people who were willing to make that sacrifice [toward energy conservation]. So my sense, to put it bluntly, is that if he hadn't screwed it up, there might have been the possibility that the country would have mobilized around fighting the energy crisis with a sense of civic sacrifice behind it.

Q: Was it the speech of a weak man, a bold man or a desperate man?

A: I don't think Carter was weak. I also don't know that he was bold. I think it was the speech of a man who was looking for a way to confront a very difficult issue and that he wanted to do his best to pull the country through and pull his own presidency through. I'd put it in the category of resolute.

Q: You treated Carter rather gently in the text.

A: I would not put him in the category of great president. I would not put him in the category of great leader. What I do think he was very good at was identifying the moral and civic crisis that America faced at that moment. The irony is, he had one of the best post-presidencies that you ever saw.