Three Navy-blue Green Presidents

Review by Bill Doughty––

Six United States presidents in my lifetime were Navy veterans: John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush. Each in his own way and to varying degrees was an optimistic champion of the environment.

Efforts of the first three –– JFK, LBJ and RMN –– led to the first Earth Day in 1970, now Earth Month in April.

The environmental movement is sometimes overshadowed by the other tectonic shifts during that era: The Cold War, Civil Rights, and the Vietnam War. But Douglas Brinkley takes the history of the green movement out of the shadows by centering on the three presidents of the era, as well as highlighting the life and work of ecologist-writer Rachel Carson, in “Silent Spring Revolution: John F. Kennedy, Rachel Carson, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and the Great Environmental Awakening” (HarperCollins, 2022).

Sailor JFK

The Navy had a large part in shaping the vision of the presidents who defended pristine wilderness, clean air and water, and preservation of the environment.

For Kennedy of Massachusetts, it began with a deep love of the sea and shoreline, according to Brinkley, who opens the book with this:

“Beguiled by the way sea and sky played together, almost always unpredictably, John F. Kennedy was enthralled by the complexity of the Atlantic Ocean: the moody sky, the invisible might of the tides, shifting clouds, and the yaw and pitch of movement. To be on the water in a sailboat, even in a cruel wind, provided him with a profound connection with nature.”

Kennedy saw, in his own words, the human “biological fact that all of us have, in our veins, the same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the ocean,” he said.

Johnson of Texas, was saddled with fighting the Vietnam War, poverty, segregation, and voter suppression. Environmentalism took somewhat of a back seat to other priorities. Brinkley writes:

“On the conservation front, Johnson probably should have been aware of of the importance of intelligent land stewardship. His favorite novel –– John Steinbeck’s ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ (1939) –– was based on a man-made ecological catastrophe during the Great Depression that destroyed ranches and farms in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. It was soil depletion that led to the Dust Bowl. Johnson, however, was left wanting to help the rural poor, without setting an equal priority on nurturing the natural world around them. Johnson liked Bureau of Reclamation dams, because he knew first-hand how electricity lit up forgotten regions, literally and figuratively.”

LBJ’s penchant for dam-building, both at home and abroad, as well as his escalation of the Vietnam war, caused consternation for environmentalists.

LBJ

Yet, in 1968, Johnson signed the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. “Rivers, Johnson believed, from the far-flung waterways of Alaska, Idaho, and Wyoming to those coursing through the rural countryside of Vermont and Maine were the lifeblood of America,” Brinkley observes.

Johnson “forged ahead on conservation legislation to protect wild places because it was part of America’s frontier heritage.” LBJ is responsible for bringing about the Wilderness Act, Highway Beautification Act, and a commitment to “a green legacy for tomorrow.” According to Brinkley, Johnson should be given more credit for his advocacy to conservation, particularly of America’s rivers (just as President Eisenhower is recognized for the national highway system). As regards LBJ, “His Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was a visionary law passed purely on behalf of the aesthetics of rivers.”

Nixon of California, was captivated by the Pacific Ocean, as a child in Orange County. In 1969 he would make his home, as Kennedy did, next to the ocean. In Nixon’s case, it was in San Clemente, where he enjoyed whale watching. Though facing his own corruption issues that would eventually lead to his expulsion from office, Nixon still managed to achieve positive global initiatives such as rapprochement with China and arms control talks with Russia. And he not only supported the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and National Environmental Policy Act, but he also created the Environmental Protection Agency.

“If Nixon’s signing of NEPA and his Everglades protection were the first big time indications of the administration’s serious commitment to environmental protection, the State of the Union address on January 22, with its plea that ‘Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions,’ was seen by surprised Democrats as the Great Reconfirmation that Nixon indeed harbored a genuine TR streak … When Nixon delivered a Special Message to the Congress on Environmental Quality on February 10 (1970), he listed fourteen executive orders and twenty-three legislative proposals to combat pollution and provide parkland. ‘The time has come when we can wait no longer to repair the damage already done,’ he told Congress.”

Brinkley notes several times that Nixon was “suspicious” of liberal traps, so he did not appear on TV for the first Earth Day. He even asked FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, to spy on high-profile Earth Day events on college campuses, fearful of their ties with the anti-Vietnam War movement.

Yet, Nixon’s support of conservation, preservation, and a clean environment persisted.

Nixon

In 1970 he created the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, and he signed the Clean Air Act.

On October 21, 1972, Nixon signed the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, an achievement to the legacy of Rachel Carson. He signed the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

And he signed the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act (limiting nationwide speed limits to 55) and the Federal Energy Administration Act in 1974 (the same year he was forced to resign because of Watergate).

Brinkley briefly shows how the Navy stopped pumping sewage into San Francisco Bay while in port. He also discusses how, during the Nixon administration, Marines at Camp Pendleton helped protect endangered wildlife. In coordination with the Department of Interior and NASA, the Navy sponsored the first all-women team of aquanauts in Tektite II to study the ecosystem at the bottom of the sea.

All three Navy-veteran presidents –– two Democrats and one Republican –– were following the lead of conservationist Republican President Theodore Roosevelt of another generation, and who had his own strong ties to the Navy and who championed nature and national parks. 

In two appendices Brinkley lists scores of national wildlife refuges and national parks created or authorized by Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.

One of President Nixon’s many environmental preservation initiatives included establishing a federally designated Wilderness area, the Cumberland Island National Seashore. “Because Cumberland National Seashore encompassed twenty-three different ecological communities, Nixon agreed that only three hundred tourists at a time be allowed on Cumberland Island. Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, a moderate Democrat, played a major conservation role regarding the saving of Cumberland…"

Rachel Carson talks about "Silent Spring" in April 1963

This massive book (857 pages!) includes dozens of evocative photos, memorable stories, and captivating personalities of the people who created the environmental enlightenment and “awakening” in the 1950s, 60s, and early 70s.

Rachel Carson provided much of the inspiration for the environmental movement leading up to the first Earth Day and the public’s demand for clean water, air, and land. She wisely connected the long-lasting danger of atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons with the hazards related to DDT, a pernicious pesticide that altered ecosystems. We have referenced or featured Carson’s works several times here on Navy Reads.

Carson’s “Silent Spring” and her Sea Trilogy inspired John F. Kennedy. Family matriarch Rose Kennedy gave a copy of “Under the Sea-Wind,” published in 1941, to JFK in the mid-1950s.

“Although ‘Under the Sea-Wind’ sold in low numbers, perhaps because Pearl Harbor occurred right after it debuted, it became celebrated by marine biologists and other lovers of the animal kingdom,” Brinkley writes.

Carson was, in turn, inspired by Albert Schweitzer. And it seems everyone was inspired by Henry David Thoreau. 

Brinkley also follows the influence and positive impact of artists, writers, scientists, and politicians: Ansel Adams, John Muir, Carl Sandburg, Marjorie Stoneman Douglas, William O. Douglas, Linus Pauling, Harold Ickes, Wallace Stegner, Robert Frost, Ted Sorensen, Robert F. Kennedy, Cesar Chavez, Jacques Cousteau, Sylvia Earle, Barry Commoner, David Brower, Lady Bird Johnson, Howard Zahniser, Ralph Nader, Robert Boyle, John Saylor, Katherine Ordway, Chief Luther Standing Bear, Laurance Rockefeller, Russell Train, Stewart Udall, Ronald Dellums, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Frank Church, Philip Hart, Gaylord Nelson, Edmund Muskie, William Ruckelshaus, Walter Hickel, Al Gore, and John Ehrlichman.

In the book’s preface, Brinkley praises those “serving a cause bigger than oneself” and warns against the ostrich syndrome of ignoring ongoing threats to the environment, including climate chaos. 

He writes: “The poisonous climate cocktail of ravaging wildfires, mega floods, and monstrous blizzards costs American taxpayers billions of dollars every year (soon to climb to trillions), disrupts lives, causes vast displacement, ruins communities, and kills countless citizens.”

Brinkley says, “In some small way, I hope this book illuminates how an engaged citizenry can bring America’s natural beauty back from the brink.” He writes, “Optimism must remain in our oxygen.”

I remember the feeling of optimism, hope, and activism of the first Earth Day in 1970, the first recognition that something needed to be done to confront pollution, overpopulation, and other ecological threats.

Among more than a dozen books, Brinkley is the author of “The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America” (2009) and “The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter’s Journey Beyond the White House” (1998).

Jimmy Carter Paradox Part 3: Fundamentalism

Review by Bill Doughty––

In a bipolar and increasingly monochrome America, Jimmy Carter paints colorful bridges to attempt to bring people together, including people of different religious beliefs.

Carter is the most devout life-long religious person elected to the presidency in modern U.S. history. His father was a deacon at his Plains Baptist Church in Georgia, and Carter has attended or led weekly Sunday school Bible lessons his whole life.

He led Bible study at Annapolis, for example, while he was a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy during World War II.

Paradoxically…

• Carter studies both the Old and New Testaments as a former missionary and self-described “evangelical Christian and a Baptist.” Yet, he decries the rise of religious fundamentalism and is strongly in favor of the wall of separation between State and Church.
• Despite his reliance on the comfort of his faith and daily prayer, he is not in favor of mandatory prayer in school, government displays of the Ten Commandments, or legislative decisions based on interpretations of the Bible over the Constitution.

This is the third in a series of reviews of “Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis” (Simon & Schuster, 2005).

Carter sat down to write the book several years after fundamentalist Islamist extremists attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. It was published in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq ordered by President George W. Bush twenty years ago. This book is still relevant and timely –– explaining why the United States has become so fractured and why fundamentalism is so dangerous.

“The most important factor is that fundamentalists have become increasingly influential in both religion and government, and have managed to change the nuances and subtleties of history debate into black-and-white rigidities and the personal derogation of those who dare to disagree. At the same time, these religious and political conservatives have melded their efforts, bridging the formerly respected separation of church and state. This has empowered a group of influential ‘neoconservatives,’ who have been able to implement their long-frustrated philosophy in both domestic and foreign policy.”

Carter notes, “Narrowly defined theological beliefs have been adopted as the rigid agenda of a political party.” He adds,”The irresolvable differences of opinion on abortion, homosexuality, and other sensitive social issues have been exacerbated by the insistence of intensely committed hardliners on imposing their minority views on a more moderate majority.”

 

Compared to his time in the White House in the mid-to-late 70s, Carter concludes, “Stronger and sharper partisan differences have evolved among Americans in recent years.”

As president, he was able to work with both Republicans and Democrats who put country and people above party and personal interests. What was still growing in 2005, when this book was published, has metastasized in 2023. Here's how Carter saw it nearly twenty years ago:

“Nowadays, the Washington scene is completely different, with almost every issue decided on a strictly partisan basis. Probing public debate on key legislative decision is almost a thing of the past. Basic agreements are made between lobbyists and legislative leaders, often within closed party caucuses where rigid discipline is paramount. Even personal courtesies, which had been especially cherished in the U.S. Senate, are no longer considered to be sacrosanct. This deterioration in harmony, cooperation, and collegiality in the Congress is, at least in part, a result of the rise of fundamentalist tendencies and their religious and political impact.”

Carter blames not only the rise of fundamentalism but also the impact of dark money in politics thanks to some large corporations and billionaires. One could argue that the differences have only grown even sharper and stronger in 2023, with help from social media algorithms, right wing media caught telling lies, and a more partisan judiciary.

Early in “Our Endangered Values” Carter identifies “prevailing characteristics” of intense fundamentalism. These characteristics can apply to Middle East ayatollahs or to homegrown “prophets” like Waco’s David Koresh:

1. Almost always, they are groups led by authoritarian males who want to subjugate women.
2. They believe the past is better than the present. [And they try to whitewash history.]
3. Self-righteousness: “Fundamentalists draw clear distinctions between themselves, as true believers, and others, convinced that they are right and that anyone who contradicts them is ignorant and possibly evil."
4. Anger: They are quick to threaten or even initiate physical attacks on others who don’t share their beliefs.
5. Fundamentalists define themselves in an “increasingly narrow and restricted” way.

The bottom line, according to Carter, is that fundamentalists [including Islamists, Christian nationalists, white supremacists, Opus Dei, etc.] believe in an ideology that is based on rigidity, domination, and exclusion. They abandon the rule of order, social justice, and environmental stewardship in favor of selfishness, greed, power, and control of others.

While reading and ruminating about “Our Endangered Values” over the past several weeks I also finished reading Daniel Byman’s “Spreading Hate: The Global Rise of White Supremacist Terrorism” (Oxford University Press, 2022). It’s a terrific companion that overlaps nicely with Carter’s observations.

Byman presents a history of extremism, militancy, and terrorism by white supremacists, antigovernment activists, Christian nationalists, and authoritarian anarchists. Like other authors and historians, such as Michelle Goldberg and Kathleen Belew (who is cited several times), Byman shows how often military veterans –– such as Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, who was also associated with the Christian Identity movement –– have been involved in anti-government violence.

More than ten percent of the people arrested for participating in the insurrection of the Capitol on January 6, 2001, are military veterans. It’s no wonder DOD is trying to root out domestic extremists in its ranks.

But it's not all doom and gloom.

In “Spreading Hate” Byman gives a hopeful view of curbing White Power power. The FBI demolished the Ku Klux Klan. Informants regularly turn on violence-prone militia extremists. The federal government learned lessons from Waco (thirty years ago today) and Ruby Ridge, so does not respond with overwhelming violence when provoked. Perhaps most importantly, public sentiment turns against mass shooters and other terrorists who try to bring about anarchy and civil war.

Charlottesville rally, August 2017.

I doubt even Jimmy Carter back in 2005 could have imagined the white supremacy rally in Charlottesville in 2017, the J6 Capitol insurrection in 2021, or the continuing rise of influential Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, from his own state of Georgia.

Speaking of civil war –– Antithetical to Carter, Greene calls for a “national divorce” of red and blue states. Greene has also come out against support for the defense of Ukraine against the Russian invasion, which is supported by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Greene recently expressed support for the Air Force national guardsman who leaked top secret Pentagon documents. (The documents came to light because of their appearance on a pro-Russian site helmed by former Navy petty officer Sarah Bils, according to USNI News.)

Greene tweeted: "Jake Teixeira is white, male, christian, and antiwar. That makes him an enemy to the Biden regime.”

Paradoxically, Biden, like Jimmy Carter, is a deeply religious president who sees the world through moderate, and some would now say progressive, eyes. In 1976 Biden was the first senator to endorse Carter for the presidency.

As for Carter, he is genuinely and deeply religious, and his interpretation of Christian values is based on caring for and about others, not alienating them. As a farmer, teacher, and builder, he tries to create bridges between people and away from blind fundamentalism.

Carters and Reagans at the Carter Center opening in 1986.

“There is obviously a widespread, carefully planned, and unapologetic crusade under way from both sides to merge fundamentalist Christians with the right wing of the Republican Party,” Carter writes. “Although considered to be desirable by some Americans, this melding of church and state is of deep concern to those who have always relished their separation as one of our moral values.”

Carter reflects, “Despite what I consider to be a constitutional and biblical requirement for the separation of church and state, I must acknowledge that my own religious beliefs have been inextricably entwined with the political principles I have adopted.” Much is left up to interpretation and selective understanding of religious texts, he says.

Carter’s nuanced views in “Our Endangered Values” includes further discussion of the treatment of women, the rights of homosexuals, and stewardship of the environment, among other controversial issues.

He also explores issues of gun control and abortion –– parts 1 and 2 of this series.

His commitment to compassion and his consideration of the views of others is welcome and especially relevant in a divided America in 2023. Today, his Carter Presidential Center in Atlanta, which includes the Carter Presidential Library and Museum, welcomes people from all over the world who want to learn, live in peace, and work together in support of human rights.

The Carter Presidential Library and Museum

Jimmy Carter Paradox Part 2: Abortion

Review by Bill Doughty––

Former President Jimmy Carter begins Chapter 8 of “Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis” (Simon & Schuster, 2005) with this observation: “Of all the sharply debated moral and political issues in America, abortion is the most divisive.” 

“Emotions run deep on both sides of the question.”

On one side, there are some people who feel there should be absolutely no restrictions on terminating a pregnancy under any circumstance for any reason. On the other extreme, there are those who believe a human life is created at conception, so abortion is murder –– with some religious fundamentalists believing even the right to contraception is not protected under the Constitution and should be outlawed.

Paradoxically…

• The bad news, according to Carter: “There will never be any reconciliation between these true believers.”
• The good news: Most people can think for themselves and see a nuanced argument in the abortion controversy.

Carter takes a somewhat conflicted approach to the issue of women’s reproductive health balanced within the context of his deep religious convictions as well as his understanding of science, society, and international concerns.

As president, Carter accepted an obligation to enforce the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling, which guaranteed a woman reproductive freedom and privacy under a trimester timetable. The ruling considered both the woman’s health and prenatal life.

Though he met his constitutional duty to enforce Roe, Carter personally believes “every abortion is an unplanned tragedy, brought about by a combination of human errors.” As president, he promoted adoption and restricted federal funding for abortions while expressing a belief that “every baby conceived should be a wanted child.”

Yet, Carter breaks with fundamentalists by supporting “top priority to health care for new mothers and their babies” and promoting strong social services for families.

“Many fervent pro-life activists do not extend their concern to the baby who is born, and are the least likely to support benevolent programs that they consider ‘socialistic.’ They ignore the fact that once a doubtful mother decides not to have an abortion, she and her family usually have a number of needs: continued education for the mother, or a maternity leave from her job; special health care, with insurance to cover the costs; housing allowances; an adequate minimum wage; and tax credits to help the employed mother and her child have a decent life. Two-thirds of women who have abortions claim their primary reason is that they cannot afford a child.”

Citing data, Carter notes that, regarding unintended pregnancies resulting in abortion, “The most prevailing common factor is poverty.”

In the penultimate chapter of the book, “The World’s Greatest Challenge in the New Millennium,” he proclaims that inequality, a growing wealth gap, and expanding disparity between rich and poor are the causes for much of America’s and the world’s woes.

We can see how extreme poverty, lack of education, and poor health care alternatives lead to overpopulation and more abortions, mass migrations, and disease epidemics. To his great credit, after his presidency Carter dedicated much of his money, influence, and personal involvement to combatting extreme poverty: eradicating the guinea worm, fighting malaria, preventing blindness, and building homes and infrastructure. He and former first lady Rosalynn Carter have been inspirational leaders of Habitat for Humanity.

Carter, the builder, hands-on with Habitat for Humanity

Carter’s view for helping the world’s and nation’s poor is seen through a religious framework, but it’s based on universal humanism: “In fact, all major religious faiths are shaped by prophetic mandates to do justice, love mercy, protect and care for widows and orphans, and exemplify God’s compassion for the poor and victimized.”

He notes, “There is an overwhelming religious mandate, often ignored by fundamentalists, to alleviate the plight of those who are in need.” Paradoxically, many of the same people who vote against access to abortions and health care for poor people instead support “subsidizing the wealthy and corporations,” he says.

Other paradoxes: Many anti-abortionists are strict states’ rights advocates yet want a nationwide federal ban on abortions. They believe in individual liberty but want to restrict a pregnant person’s choice made with her doctor and family (in the case of Idaho, even restricting her travel to another state). They support education yet ban books and teaching of certain subjects.

Breaking further with fundamentalists, Carter calls for more, not less, sex education in schools. “One of the well-meaning but counterproductive approaches is to refrain from teaching our young people how to avoid pregnancy, instruction that is provided thoroughly and persistently in other nations.”

While federal funding for such education in the United States has increased over the decades, Carter, writing in 2005, decries ultra-conservatives’ “strict prohibition against mention of any kind of contraception.”

Similarly, “There are members of the U.S. Congress who attempt to prevent the use of foreign aid funds for any form of family-planning services in other countries,” Carter writes. “The impact of this policy is counterproductive if the purpose of the development assistance is to ease pain and suffering, to improve the lives of adults, and to reduce the infant morality rate.”

Though he doesn’t specifically address abortion policy for the U.S. military, readers can see a parallel when authoritarian politicians restrict access to reproductive health care for women who serve in uniform.

Recently, Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-TN) announced a hold on Defense Department civilian and senior officer nominations until Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin rescinds his policy of supporting service members' access to abortion. Austin, along with many other members of Congress, have decried the actions of Tuberville as adversely impacting military readiness. Tuberville say, "This is about not forcing the taxpayers of this country to fund abortion."

In 2023, fundamentalists are also attempting to restrict access to medications to help women deal with miscarriages or induce abortions soon after conception.

Another “hotly debated issue involves stem cell research,” according to Carter. “It has been proven scientifically that a fertilized human egg (about the size of the period at the end of this sentence) can provide cells that are very flexible in their use, with prospects of preventing or curing a number of diseases, including diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and spinal cord injuries.”

Reagan & Schwarzenegger

Carter notes how former first lady Nancy Reagan and former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger championed a referendum approved by California voters in 2004 to establish “a massive program of stem cell research” supported by most Americans. But, anti-abortion activists and then-President George W. Bush opposed using new stem cell lines.

Carter concludes, “It is clear that the subject of life before birth will continue to be the most hotly debated, in religious, political, and scientific terms. There is a strong religious commitment to the sanctity of human life, but, paradoxically, some of the most fervent protectors of microscopic stem cells are the most ardent proponents of the death penalty.” 

Some also fight against any restriction on the proliferation of guns in society, as we noted in Part 1 of this series. Sen. Tuberville, for example, was one of 33 senators who voted against last year's Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that incentivizes states to pass red flag laws and expand background checks for 18- to 21-year-olds, among other measures.

U.S. Sen. Thomas H. Tuberville, a senator from Alabama, takes aim a sniper rifle during a congressional delegation’s visit on Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, May 24, 2021. (Lance Cpl. George Nudo)