“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.

The Allelic Abundance of Afghanistan, a Pool for West and South Eurasian Genes and a Blockade against Eastern Admixture

In this study, I divided samples from individuals within Afghanistan based upon geography (i.e., north versus south). I determined allelic frequencies and other statistical parameters for 15 STR loci (i.e., D8S1179, D21S11, D7S820, CSF1PO, D3S1358, TH01, Dl3S317, D16S539, D2S1338, D19S433, vWA, TPOX, D18S51, D5S818, and FGA). I conducted pairwise comparisons with 19 neighboring Eurasian populations to assign Gstatistics and p-values. Categorizing the populations into five groups (i.e., Central Asia, East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, and the Caucasus/Anatolia), I derived values for intra-population, inter-population, and total variance. Admixture analyses determined the highest allelic contributions to be from the Caucasus/ Anatolia, while negligible contributions were made by Central Asia and East Asia. A Correspondence Analysis revealed clustering of both northern and southern Afghanistan with Georgia, Turkey, northern Iran, and southern Iran of the Caucasus/ Anatolia and the Middle East. A Neighbor-Joining phylogenetic tree was constructed to generate bootstrap values over 1, 000 reiterations.

Democracy promotion and Turkey

The dissertation documented the degree of Turkey's involvement in the promotion of democracy in the Arab Middle East (ME). Initially, I investigated why and under what conditions Turkey promotes democracy in the ME, and then I explained strategies through which Turkey promotes democracy in the region. I applied the neo-classical realist theoretical framework and a mixed methodology in the research, and I provided evidence from two sources: face-to-face interviews with the Turkish and foreign officials and common citizens, and the statistical data from institutions, such as the OECD, Turkish Statistical Institute, and World Bank.^ My research indicates that Turkey promotes democracy through seven channels. These channels are official development assistance (ODA), mentoring, demonstrative effect, normative pressure, conditionality, military power, enlargement, and civil society organizations. Turkey promotes democracy in the ME for three substantial reasons: first, to advance its security and economic interests; second, to improve the political, social, and economic conditions of people living in the region; and third, to create long-term regional stability, crucial for cooperation in economic and security realms.^ I attempted to engage in debates with two distinct, but interrelated fields of comparative politics and international relations. My most important contribution to the field is that I documented Turkey's case of democracy promotion regarding the degree of Turkey's involvement in this endeavor, its strategies, specificities, and effectiveness in the region. I also contribute to the field as I explained the difference between democracy promotion policies of a regional power, such as Turkey, and global powers, such as the US. I further engaged in discussions that illuminate some aspects of the interplay between the identity and strategic interests in states' foreign policy decisions.^