President Jimmy Carter believed income inequality was the most urgent issue we face worldwide. One need look no further than the results of the last US presidential election and the current outsized influence of very wealthy men on American and global politics to say we did not act soon enough. But it is not too late.
President Carter sent messages, even through his own funeral, warning against the consolidation of economic and political power. He understood that many people around the globe would feel disempowered and dismayed, searching for a means to regroup and move forward, even as the rule of law comes under increasingly dramatic attack.
While resistance is needed, we must also reconstruct an understanding of human rights in the United States to include economic, social, and cultural rights as well as civil and political rights. Too often, powerful economic actors accumulate wealth via the imposition of human rights violations; while illegal, this is widely tolerated.
In the summer of 2024, I attended a Carter Center meeting with US state and local human rights commissions. It became clear that few of these organizations base their work on human rights law or look to similar practices for successful innovations that can be imported to the United States. Very few indeed advocate for economic, social, and cultural rights and apply human rights guardrails to the economy. It is time to do so.
President Carter and human rights
President Carter stated that housing is a basic human right and worked to make that belief a reality by building low-income housing. He also advocated for a rights-based approach to housing and healthcare.
President Carter wanted to create a better world by approaching all policy work through a human rights framework. To do so, he signed both principal human rights treaties. While the United States has yet to ratify one of them, the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which addresses structural discrimination and economic rights.
The United States and the human rights economy
Democrats and Republicans have doggedly maintained that the magic of the “free” market will solve all our social and economic problems, loath to recognize its real human costs. The market should not exist beyond the rule of law—it must operate by respecting human rights first and maximizing returns second. But maximizing returns by imposing human rights violations seems to be becoming the American ethos. President Carter understood the danger of this.
Human rights should not be seen as a relic of history, but as a living tool with which to curb the excesses of the powerful, even if today they are rarely held liable for their actions. We see this, for example, in the developing climate crisis, for which the political and economic elite bear primary responsibility. More broadly, everyday human rights violations include the growing number of unhoused and hungry people.
A human rights economy prioritizes respect for human rights, and it “seeks to redress root causes and structural barriers to equality, justice, and sustainability, by prioritizing investment in economic, social and cultural rights.” The concept of fiduciary duty must evolve, as only after all human rights are respected should businesses maximize return to investors. The rights to health, housing, education, and a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment are all under threat and must be addressed by a human rights economy. A corporation’s “right” to maximize returns ends at my cancer diagnosis or the flooding of my home.
A human rights economy addresses structural and historical inequalities. The Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy at the New School has done a series of studies on the color of wealth. In Boston, for example, the median net worth of white households in 2015 was $247,500, while for non-immigrant Black households it was $8. Generational wealth is a significant predictor of well-being as it provides educational, health, and business opportunities. Low-income communities with limited political power and influence, often with significant populations of color, have the highest number of environmental negative externalities or human rights violations related to health that are imposed upon them by powerful individuals and businesses.
The role of state and local human rights commissions in the United States
Globally, human rights are understood to include various types of responsibilities—to respect, protect, and fulfill such rights, for example—that are related to different actors, including local or national officials, businesses, and individuals. This framework, which is reflected in the Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, highlights the importance of the social contract: we all have rights, and we all have duties.
The human rights economy emphasizes the need to protect and fulfill rights, but the United States focuses only on addressing specific and intentional discrimination by government officials. As a result, few of the hundreds of human rights commissions in the United States actively promote a human rights economy. However, limiting the interpretation of rights to intentional discrimination is inconsistent with US human rights treaty obligations and has not served the public well.
The Carter human rights economy fellowships for US human rights commissions
For local governments to meet their human rights obligations, commissions must assess budgets, wealth, and environmental justice through a human rights commission lens and examine how officials at all levels have tolerated the harm inflicted on communities under their jurisdiction. To be clear, local governments have obligations under ratified treaties, such as the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which includes rights related to individual and public health.
While the federal government wallows in ideological self-indulgence, states and local governments should lead by creating Carter human rights economy fellowships. These positions would employ recent graduates for two years in a human rights commission. The modest amount needed to begin this program could come from public or philanthropic sources. Human rights commissions, the public, and human rights work would benefit if the commissions had the resources to take on everyday problems related to the rights to health care, education, housing, social security, and a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. They could also promote the creation of inter-generational wealth (e.g., baby bonds) and assess whether budgets and procurement practices support or erode human rights. There is plenty of work for the fellows—for example, confronting harmful corporate practices related to health insurance and environmental pollution.
President Carter understood that to create peaceful, prosperous societies, it is necessary to be aware of and act in solidarity with those left behind. As he said, “We must adjust to changing times and still hold to unchanging principles.” For him, these principles included all human rights as well as their application to restrain harmful economic activity that benefits some powerful people and imposes violations on others. We should heed his message.