(6 of 9)
Almost as important as improved human relations to Carter was efficiency in government. One of the few things that make him stop smiling is disorder or sloppy work. He was appalled by Georgia's jumble of some 300 overlapping state agencies. He recalls: "It had got so that every time I opened the closet door of my office, a new state agency would fall out."
He pushed a reorganization plan, which eventually trimmed agencies so heavily that an occasional bureaucrat would try to barricade himself inside his office. By the time his four-year term had ended, he had reduced the agencies to a more manageable 22. That did not mean that all the agencies disappeared; many of them were simply grouped in a single department with no loss of staff. Carter also introduced "zero-based budgeting." Every state department had to justify its entire budget request, and not just the increase over the year before. The new system is still being tested, and it has flaws. But political scientists—and even some of his enemies—concede that Carter made substantial improvements, cut the flow of paper and reduced the rate of growth in state costs.
The Governor's relationship with the legislature was more stormy. A stubborn, even self-righteous man, he seemed temperamentally unsuited for the give-and-take of governing. He thought nothing of tongue-lashing legislators and lobbyists whom he considered obstructionist. This attitude almost cost him his cherished reorganization plan and prevented his consumer protection legislation from being enacted.
Once Carter's aides were elated when a state senator said he would vote for a bill if his father, a minor state employee, was promoted. The Governor balked at the deal. "Hell, no," said Carter. "I didn't run for Governor to pass bills promoting that guy's father."
Overall, Carter's governorship was a success because of his skilled balancing of traditional and emerging political forces in Georgia. "He cloaked liberalism in conservative jargon," says a state official. Carter promoted his social programs as an extension of the Gospel: problem-solving combined with Christian charity. In headier moments, he compared his actions to Christ's ministry to the suffering. It was an extravagant analogy, but politically it worked. Carter gave to the poor without overly offending the well-to-do, conquered without excessively dividing.
This year he is showing similar dexterity in his presidential campaign. So far, he has negotiated an intricate slalom course with remarkable ease, swooping first to the left, then to the right. The most difficult of all the candidates to categorize, Carter is liberal on some issues, moderate to conservative on others. At a time when many in his audiences want simple answers, he recognizes that issues are complicated—and sometimes gives complex or even confusing answers. But, more often, his positions are clear.