Criticism against the president is nothing new for the White House. Everyday people in the media, Congress and elsewhere throughout the world criticize decisions made by the administration. This sort of criticism is usually expected. Criticism from within the administration or from former presidents generally is not.
Typically it is an unspoken rule among current and former presidents to not openly criticize each other. They have all been in the situation before, and if they really wanted to let their voice be known, they have the power to just pick up the phone and call the current president.
One piece that goes against that grain, though, is Jimmy Carter’s op-ed piece in Sunday’s New York Times saying America has the means to help achieve peace in the Middle East.
Carter seemed to tactfully say Bush was not trying hard enough to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
William Howell, an assistant professor of political science at UW-Madison, said typically this unspoken rule among presidents does apply — at least in the short term.
“For the most part, certainly in the short term, they are supposed to bow out quietly, and when they don’t, people get worked up,” Howell said. “Out-going presidents are supposed to fade into the background.”
Howell cited the flak Clinton got by making loud noise as he left office — both because of the controversial pardons and because of the “gifts” he and Hillary took from the White House.
Despite this supposed unspoken rule that presidents do not openly criticize each other, criticism from former presidents is not unprecedented, and it seems to increase the longer one has been out of office.
Eisenhower did it when Kennedy came into office. Nixon wrote about the Clinton administration’s economic program. Carter has probably written the most out of any former president, commenting on issues ranging from the environment to Clinton’s impeachment.
Publicly commenting on issues the longer a president is out of office can be beneficial, Howell said, because they acquire more experiences, which can shed light on current situations.
For instance, Carter has had extensive experience dealing with the Middle East both in and out of office. His insight can prove valuable to the Bush administration. And, by publishing it in a major U.S. newspaper, he is using the best outlet — the media — to sway public opinion, and probably Bush’s, in his direction.
But the Bush administration may be hard to crack, or at least sensitive to criticism. For example, Bush forbade his own staff members from openly disagreeing with what the White House is doing. In addition, this president’s office is one of the most tight-lipped administrations, and the façade presented is always that of a happy family.
But the trend of a former president utilizing the media rather than just telling Bush how he feels also brings up the question of whether Bush is being receptive to Carter’s suggestions.
In addition, Bush is probably not going to be very nice to former administrations either, Howell said.
“Don’t be surprised to see Bush comment on how much better his administration is than the previous two Clinton administrations,” Howell said.
A flip through the pages of history — and newspapers — may show that debates among former presidents is probably not as absent as one may think. It is a very elite club of men who have special insights and ideas because of their past presidential experiences.
