5 ms·

I decided to submit this because I have always been fascinated with Jimmy Carter. What a genuine, decent person. But history has judged him as one of the wors

I decided to submit this because I have always been fascinated with Jimmy Carter. What a genuine, decent person. But history has judged him as one of the worst presidents. I was in third grade when Carter was running for re-election against Ronald Reagan. Our teacher gave us an assignment to create a campaign poster for your favorite candidate. I chose Jimmy Carter, and added the campaign slogan, "I will gladly trade peanuts for the American hostages" (referring to to Carter's history as a farmer and to the Iran hostage crisis [1]). I thought I was really clever at the time, but now I think I was just being a stupid smartass. Whenever I have seen Carter in the press since his presidency, it always seems like he is going something unambiguously good, like building houses with Habitat for Humanity or trying to negotiate peace agreements between unfriendly countries as an unbiased mediator. I think we won't have this great man with us for much longer. The world will be a worse place when he departs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

whichwalrus 8y ago
I appreciate the submission.. it was a soothing, peaceful read. :)
tonyedgecombe 8y ago
But history has judged him as one of the worst presidents. I wonder if that is a fair judgement or whether he was just the victim of the economic cycle and external forces.
- mvkel 8y ago
  Every president is the victim (or beneficiary) of the economic cycle and external forces. What makes a president memorable is what they do when they’re dealt a “bad hand.”
  - peatmoss 8y ago
    I marvel at what a terrible hand Obama was dealt when he entered office. I don’t support everything he did, but I’ve got to give the guy props for getting anything done. I miss “No Drama Obama.” Obama may not be quite the boy scout that Carter has been, but my expectations are that he’ll become an elder statesmen of the republic that we’ll cherish similarly.
- paulpauper 8y ago
  Not stopping the overthrow of the Shah (and then admitting him to the United States) may have been a mistake because of the hostage crisis that unfolded and also created geopolitical instability that continues to this day.
  - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
    The geopolitical instability was set in a long time before then, probably after the second world war, possibly all the way back to the 7th century.
  - EvilEndures 8y ago
    > Not stopping the overthrow of the Shah (and then admitting him to the United States) may have been a mistake because of the hostage crisis that unfolded and also created geopolitical instability that continues to this day. Fighting to defend a dictator the West effectively installed to suppress a populist movement was unlikely to have a better outcome than the Shah being ousted. People in the West seem to forget the Iranian Revolution was _extremely_ popular in Iran. Why was it popular? Because the Shah was a corrupt and oppressive regime that was hated by the Iranian people. The Iranian Revolution wasn't the first time he was forced out of Iran either. This delusion that Iran could be "ruled" by the Shah as a positive outcome needs to stop. It isn't borne out by the facts and it would have ended up collapsing eventually. Popular leaders don't need organizations like SAVAK to torture its own people.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  No, he's a nice man but a poor leader. He had lots of really nice things to say about Chavez and Castro when they died, for instance. Even if you're left wing, you need to acknowledge they did some pretty awful things to their people as leaders.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    He had lots of really nice things to say about Chavez and Castro when they died, for instance. Lots of really nice things? What he said about Castro: "We remember fondly our visits with him in Cuba and his love of his country."
    - humanrebar 8y ago
      It's an odd thing to be fond of visiting with a man with the justified infamy of Castro. He is responsible for human rights violations, escalation of the cold war in the Western Hemisphere, crippling the Cuban economy and any number of other things. But I guess he loved his country. Except for the people he exiled to the U.S. I guess.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        "He is responsible for human rights violations, escalation of the cold war in the Western Hemisphere, crippling the Cuban economy" Those would indeed be funny accusations for an ex-POTUS to make.
        humanrebar 8y ago
        Well, he could have not cozied up to dictators and avoided the whole issue.
- AndyMcConachie 8y ago
  He was a victim of the Iran-Contra scandal. Something that the USA has failed to deal with to this day.
- smileysteve 8y ago
  In many ways, "history" has changed with revelations from the CIAs actions in Iran, Reagans actions in Iran (before and after), and more, especially to those of us reading instead of basing it on partisan hackery. Perhaps one of the better statements we can most accurately make is that his administration was pretty poor at covering things up, spinning - perhaps to the extent of lacking the confidence Americans required. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/books/review/president-carter-stuart-eizenstat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/books/review/president-ca...
  - 0xcde4c3db 8y ago
    > especially to those of us reading instead of basing it on partisan hackery And make no mistake: the partisan hackery is strong in criticism (more commonly, vacuous dismissal) of Carter. I know a Republican who calls him "that man", a la FDR's detractors.
- DanielGee 8y ago
  Great wars make great generals. People aren't great in and of themselves. They are great within an environment. So everyone is a "victim" of externalities.
maxxxxx 8y ago
"But history has judged him as one of the worst presidents." I think he had a bit of bad luck with the economy of his time and also with the Iranian hostage situation. If freeing them had worked he would have been a superhero. Or he could have done it like Reagan with Iran-Contra: talk tough in public but secretly pay off the Iranians.
- nabla9 8y ago
  Carter succeeded in freeing the Hostages. Carter's negotiations lead to the release of the hostages on the day Reagan was inaugurated. Iranians were deliberatively delaying the release because Carter was literally the the face of great Satan for them.
  - AndyMcConachie 8y ago
    Either that, or Reagan made a deal with Khomeni to delay the release of the hostages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_th...
    - iambateman 8y ago
      It’s an interesting theory but that article points out that the Senate did an investigation as well as many many news outlets in search of supporting evidence and none was ever found. That’s not to say it didn’t happen, but it hasn’t been proven by any means.
  - claydavisss 8y ago
    The Iranians were likely eager to have the crisis end as well...they gained nothing while becoming a global pariah. They probably also understood that if they were to end the crisis by killing the hostages, Reagan would have authorized the use of nuclear weapons on Tehran.
    - nabla9 8y ago
      > Reagan would have authorized the use of nuclear weapons on Tehran. Before you say things like this maybe you should ask yourself something like "Is this my personal opinion I invented on the spot without any evidence."
hluska 8y ago
> I chose Jimmy Carter, and added the campaign slogan, "I will gladly trade peanuts for the American hostages" (referring to to Carter's history as a farmer and to the Iran hostage crisis [1]). I thought I was really clever at the time, but now I think I was just being a stupid smartass. I really like that story! You'd be a few years older than me, but we would have gotten along well as kids/stupid smartasses...:)
rectang 8y ago
> But history has judged him as one of the worst presidents. As polarization has increased, views of former presidents have become more partisan and whether you hold this view now more closely tracks political affiliation.
a_136_chiffa 8y ago
> But history has judged him as one of the worst presidents. Nah, not if you talk to any craft brewers or beer enthusiasts. They are basically inches short of having his portrait hung in every craft brewery and pub due to his H.R. 1337 bill. If it wasn't for political partisanship, this might have already happened.

whichwalrus 8y ago

I appreciate the submission.. it was a soothing, peaceful read. :)

tonyedgecombe 8y ago

But history has judged him as one of the worst presidents. I wonder if that is a fair judgement or whether he was just the victim of the economic cycle and external forces.

mvkel 8y ago
Every president is the victim (or beneficiary) of the economic cycle and external forces. What makes a president memorable is what they do when they’re dealt a “bad hand.”
- peatmoss 8y ago
  I marvel at what a terrible hand Obama was dealt when he entered office. I don’t support everything he did, but I’ve got to give the guy props for getting anything done. I miss “No Drama Obama.” Obama may not be quite the boy scout that Carter has been, but my expectations are that he’ll become an elder statesmen of the republic that we’ll cherish similarly.
paulpauper 8y ago
Not stopping the overthrow of the Shah (and then admitting him to the United States) may have been a mistake because of the hostage crisis that unfolded and also created geopolitical instability that continues to this day.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  The geopolitical instability was set in a long time before then, probably after the second world war, possibly all the way back to the 7th century.
- EvilEndures 8y ago
  > Not stopping the overthrow of the Shah (and then admitting him to the United States) may have been a mistake because of the hostage crisis that unfolded and also created geopolitical instability that continues to this day. Fighting to defend a dictator the West effectively installed to suppress a populist movement was unlikely to have a better outcome than the Shah being ousted. People in the West seem to forget the Iranian Revolution was _extremely_ popular in Iran. Why was it popular? Because the Shah was a corrupt and oppressive regime that was hated by the Iranian people. The Iranian Revolution wasn't the first time he was forced out of Iran either. This delusion that Iran could be "ruled" by the Shah as a positive outcome needs to stop. It isn't borne out by the facts and it would have ended up collapsing eventually. Popular leaders don't need organizations like SAVAK to torture its own people.
humanrebar 8y ago
No, he's a nice man but a poor leader. He had lots of really nice things to say about Chavez and Castro when they died, for instance. Even if you're left wing, you need to acknowledge they did some pretty awful things to their people as leaders.
- icebraining 8y ago
  He had lots of really nice things to say about Chavez and Castro when they died, for instance. Lots of really nice things? What he said about Castro: "We remember fondly our visits with him in Cuba and his love of his country."
  - humanrebar 8y ago
    It's an odd thing to be fond of visiting with a man with the justified infamy of Castro. He is responsible for human rights violations, escalation of the cold war in the Western Hemisphere, crippling the Cuban economy and any number of other things. But I guess he loved his country. Except for the people he exiled to the U.S. I guess.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      "He is responsible for human rights violations, escalation of the cold war in the Western Hemisphere, crippling the Cuban economy" Those would indeed be funny accusations for an ex-POTUS to make.
      - humanrebar 8y ago
        Well, he could have not cozied up to dictators and avoided the whole issue.
AndyMcConachie 8y ago
He was a victim of the Iran-Contra scandal. Something that the USA has failed to deal with to this day.
smileysteve 8y ago
In many ways, "history" has changed with revelations from the CIAs actions in Iran, Reagans actions in Iran (before and after), and more, especially to those of us reading instead of basing it on partisan hackery. Perhaps one of the better statements we can most accurately make is that his administration was pretty poor at covering things up, spinning - perhaps to the extent of lacking the confidence Americans required. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/books/review/president-carter-stuart-eizenstat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/books/review/president-ca...
- 0xcde4c3db 8y ago
  > especially to those of us reading instead of basing it on partisan hackery And make no mistake: the partisan hackery is strong in criticism (more commonly, vacuous dismissal) of Carter. I know a Republican who calls him "that man", a la FDR's detractors.
DanielGee 8y ago
Great wars make great generals. People aren't great in and of themselves. They are great within an environment. So everyone is a "victim" of externalities.

maxxxxx 8y ago

"But history has judged him as one of the worst presidents." I think he had a bit of bad luck with the economy of his time and also with the Iranian hostage situation. If freeing them had worked he would have been a superhero. Or he could have done it like Reagan with Iran-Contra: talk tough in public but secretly pay off the Iranians.

nabla9 8y ago
Carter succeeded in freeing the Hostages. Carter's negotiations lead to the release of the hostages on the day Reagan was inaugurated. Iranians were deliberatively delaying the release because Carter was literally the the face of great Satan for them.
- AndyMcConachie 8y ago
  Either that, or Reagan made a deal with Khomeni to delay the release of the hostages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_th...
  - iambateman 8y ago
    It’s an interesting theory but that article points out that the Senate did an investigation as well as many many news outlets in search of supporting evidence and none was ever found. That’s not to say it didn’t happen, but it hasn’t been proven by any means.
- claydavisss 8y ago
  The Iranians were likely eager to have the crisis end as well...they gained nothing while becoming a global pariah. They probably also understood that if they were to end the crisis by killing the hostages, Reagan would have authorized the use of nuclear weapons on Tehran.
  - nabla9 8y ago
    > Reagan would have authorized the use of nuclear weapons on Tehran. Before you say things like this maybe you should ask yourself something like "Is this my personal opinion I invented on the spot without any evidence."

hluska 8y ago

> I chose Jimmy Carter, and added the campaign slogan, "I will gladly trade peanuts for the American hostages" (referring to to Carter's history as a farmer and to the Iran hostage crisis [1]). I thought I was really clever at the time, but now I think I was just being a stupid smartass. I really like that story! You'd be a few years older than me, but we would have gotten along well as kids/stupid smartasses...:)

rectang 8y ago

> But history has judged him as one of the worst presidents. As polarization has increased, views of former presidents have become more partisan and whether you hold this view now more closely tracks political affiliation.

a_136_chiffa 8y ago

> But history has judged him as one of the worst presidents. Nah, not if you talk to any craft brewers or beer enthusiasts. They are basically inches short of having his portrait hung in every craft brewery and pub due to his H.R. 1337 bill. If it wasn't for political partisanship, this might have already happened.