“I had a different way of governing”: The evangelical presidential style of Jimmy Carter and his mission for Middle East peace

President Jimmy Carter once said, "I had a different way of governing." In attempting to explain what he meant by this, Carter has been variously described as a political amateur, a trustee, a non-political politician, an "active-positive" president, and a forerunner of the 1990s' New Democrats. It is argued here, however, that mere secular descriptions and categories such as these do not adequately capture the essence of Carter's brand of politics and his understanding of the presidency. Rejecting Richard Neustadt's prescriptions for effective presidential leadership, Carter thought political bargaining and compromise were "dirty" and "sinful." He deemed the ways of Washington as "evil," and considered many, if not most, career politicians immoral. While he fully supported the institutional separation of church and state, politics for Carter was about "doing right," telling the truth, and making the United States and the world "a better demonstration of what Christ is." Like two earlier Democrats, William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson, Carter understood politics as an alternative form of Christian ministry and service. In this regard, Carter was a presidential exception. Carter's evangelical faith gave his politics meaning, skill, vision, and a framework for communication. Using Fred Greenstein's categories of presidential leadership, Carter's faith provided him with "emotional intelligence", too. However, Carter's evangelical style provoked many of his contemporaries, including many of his fellow Democrats. To his critics at home and abroad, Carter was often accused of being arrogant, stubborn, naive, and ultimately a political failure. But as evinced by his indispensable role in negotiating peace between Israel and Egypt, his leadership style also provided him some remarkable achievements. The research here is based on a thorough examination of President Carter's many writings, his public papers, interviews, and opinion pieces. Written accounts from former Carter administration officials and from Israeli and Egyptian participants at Camp David are also used. This project is largely descriptive, qualitative in approach, but quantitative data are used when appropriate and as supplements.

Roadblocks to Teaching English as a Foreign Language in a Climate of Accelerated Curricular Change

This paper examines the global "English craze," in which non-Englishspeaking countries, especially in Asia, East Asia, and the Middle East, are engaged in a concerted push to get the language taught more widely and at increasingly lower grade levels. The goal of this paper is to document how this phenomenon has impacted teachers of English as a Foreign Language and how they can try to alleviate these problems.

Rethinking the national question: Anti-statist discourses within the Kurdish national movement

Why and under what conditions have the Kurds become agents of change in the Middle East in terms of democratization? Why did the Kurds' role as democratic agents become particularly visible in the 1990s? How does the Kurdish movement's turn to democratic discourse affect the political systems of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria? What are the implications of the Kurds' adoption of "democratic discourse" for the transnational aspect of the Kurdish movement? Since the early 1990s, Kurdish national movements in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria have undergone important political and ideological transformations. As a result of the Kurds' growing role in shaping the debates on human rights and democratization in these four countries, the Kurdish national movement has acquired a dual character: an ethno-cultural struggle for the recognition of Kurdish identity, and a democratization movement that seeks to redefine the concepts of governance and citizenship in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. The process transformation has affected relations between the Kurdish movements and their respective central governments in significant ways. On the basis of face-to-face interviews and archival research conducted in Turkey, Iraq and parts of Europe, the present work challenges the current narrative of Kurdish nationalism, which is predominantly drawn from a statist interpretation of Kurdish nationalist goals, and argues instead that the Kurdish question is no longer a problem of statelessness but a problem of democracy in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. The main contributions of this work are three fold. First, the research unfolds the reasons behind the growing emphasis of the Kurdish movement on the concepts of democracy, human rights, and political participation, which started in the early 1990s. Second, the findings challenge the existing scholarship that explains Kurdish nationalism as a problem of statelessness and shifts the focus to the transformative potentials of the Kurdish national movement in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria through a comparative lens. Third, this work explores the complex transnational coordination and negotiations between the Kurdish movements across borders and explains the regional repercussions of this process.