6 ms·
"Carter’s liberal big-government policies" Yes, this needs to be debunked. I was in high school during the Carter years and I was into politics (seems odd for
by UncleOxidant 5y ago
"Carter’s liberal big-government policies"
Yes, this needs to be debunked. I was in high school during the Carter years and I was into politics (seems odd for someone that age). There's a reason that Carter was primaried by Ted Kennedy in 1980: many Democrats found Carter too fiscally conservative. Carter was a deficit hawk. He pushed for a balanced budget and that upset many Democrats at the time because he wasn't proposing the large social spending increases they wanted to see.
I think Carter is definitely an underrated president who likely would have been re-elected had the Iranian hostage crisis not happened. He was a visionary especially in terms of the environment and global climate change (which his administration began to address). But he was much more of a centrist than a liberal - though the center has moved to the right since his time.
- pstuart 5y ago> I think Carter is definitely an underrated president who likely would have been re-elected had the Iranian hostage crisis not happened Yep. The October Surprise by Team Reagan worked very well.
- loonster 5y agoHe also killed off Nuclear. For that alone he shouldn't have a 2nd term.
- lindseymysse 5y agoThat and funding the mujahideen were big whiffs.
- wolverine876 5y ago> funding the mujahideen Blowback keeps happening. IIRC, the modern Central American drug gangs were born of US funding and training of anti-Communist forces in the 1980s. Remember it next time someone says, 'let's send arms to those insurgents!' Obama dialed it back, partly for that reason (AFAIK). Biden apparently has embraced a policy of 'restraint', with the idea that outcomes from US intervention often are counter-productive. (I don't support it - instead, accept the challenge and find better interventions. Quitting is a bizarre solution IMHO. People still need freedom, and need help.)
- lindseymysse 5y agoI always thought we could do well parachuting in cell phones into these hot spots, and these cell phones get $50 usd or maybe a little more transferred to accounts tied to that number. Then we could have incentives -- hey, go to this mosque, not that one and we'll pay you $20 more a week. It would be cheaper than what we do now and would be a lot more effective than dropping bombs on wedding parties.
- wolverine876 5y agoVery interesting. As you may know, there's research showing that if you just give people cash (or other liquid forms of money), they spend it well and it's highly efficient. It's very interesting to apply that to conflict. We do sometimes buy off governments, effectively, via foreign aid.
- loonster 5y agoObama did not dial it back. His ATF moved guns across the southern border which resulted in US deaths (Fast and Furious). Gave weapons to Syrian rebels. Gave weapons to Libyan rebels.
- wolverine876 5y agoThat they did some doesn't mean they didn't reduce it. If I say I'm drinking less, drinking one beer doesn't contradict it. > Gave weapons to Syrian rebels. That was the main place they limited supplying arms, IIRC. For example, (again IIRC) the US wouldn't send portable anti-aircraft weapons.
- evgen 5y agoI think you are confusing Jimmy Carter with Three Mile Island. The former favoured renewables over nuclear, but it was the latter that stopped nuclear energy development in its tracks.
- loonster 5y agoNo I am not. He banned the reprocessing of spent fuels.
- egberts1 5y agoyou seemed sure. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/10/08/Reagan-lifts-ban-on-nuclear-fuel-recycling/9330371361600/ https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/10/08/Reagan-lifts-ban-on-...
- loonster 5y agoYes Regan lifted it but the damage was done. Say you are a company that is thinking about spending a few billion on a nuclear powerplant, are you going to take the risk when a single person, that possibly might change every 4 years, can decide your fate. This was not good policy.
- evgen 5y agoThe reprocessing of spent fuel had nothing to do with the success or failure of nuclear power in the US. Anyone claiming otherwise is poorly informed.
- UncleOxidant 5y ago"Many countries see nuclear power as the only real opportunity, at least in this century, to reduce the dependence of their economic well-being on foreign oil-an energy source of uncertain availability, growing price, and ultimate exhaustion. The U.S., by contrast, has a major domestic energy source- coal-but its use is not without penalties, and our plans also call for the use of nuclear power as a share in our energy production." Jimmy Carter April 7, 1977 Wouldn't exactly call that "killing off nuclear power" - Three Mile Island and the movie The China Syndrome did that. The movie was released ~2 weeks before the accident on March 28, 1979.
- fuzzfactor 5y agoIIRC among his other achievements President Carter does have a degree in Nuclear Physics.
- pram 5y agoThe Iranian situation was a result of his policy, not just some unfortunate event that randomly happened. Brzezinski is directly responsible for the “arc of crisis” foreign policy that sought to intentionally destabilize the Islamic states on the Soviet periphery. That crisis is still going on 40 years later!
- remarkEon 5y agoI've often wondered if the rescue operation wasn't such a spectacular failure[1], if he'd then been reelected. Had this been a success, it would've been one of the most complex missions ever attempted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
- mc32 5y agoYeah, I think so. It was such a terrible boondoggle and blunder. People who followed current events back then say it demoralized the country, so I think could have been the straw that broke the camel's back. It's like it was ill conceived and amateurish. Yes, accidents happen, but to be so unprepared is inexcusable (compare Grenada or Panama operations)
- UncleOxidant 5y agoThe United States overthrew Mossadegh the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953. That's where the problems started. Long before Carter's presidency.
- rsj_hn 5y agoThis is bad history that robs people of their agency and blames the US as the sole cause of any political event happening anywhere in the world. First, it was the Clerical class that was most responsible for the overthrow. They were the ones with the organization and the power and the political networks. They then recruited the British to help them, who were the second most important factor. The British had intelligence assets in Iran. The US was basically a bagman, paying off $100,000 to some of the actors on behalf of the British, and for the clerics. The U.S. simply didn't have a lot of intelligence assets in Iran, nor did it have any troops there, nor did it have a lot of sway over Iran. It was an intermediary between the actors that actually held power. One can argue that the payment of $100,000 - that was the sole contribution of the U.S. to the coup - was what made the difference. I doubt it. Then the US CIA chief played up his role in the coup in an attempt to gain political points. Yet this complex history is boiled down to "US overthrows democratically elected government". I mean, come on. But what's useful about such a narrative is that the U.S. (and also the U.S.S.R.) were involved in the politics of basically every country. Even if all they did was throw a dinner at their embassy or promise some foreign aid. So all you need to do is look at whichever side the U.S. was on in some local dispute, and then if that side won, you say "US forces nation to do X". This is bad history. UPDATE: people have been clamoring for links, so see this comment for more info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29102780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29102780
- WalterBright 5y agoCarter never understood the gas crisis. Reagan's very first Executive Order was to repeal the oil and gas price and allocation controls. The gas lines disappeared literally overnight (I know this from personal experience) and never returned. It's hard to overestimate what a disaster the long lines for gas were.
- cafard 5y agoThe gas lines were a pain, but my recollection is that they were over well before the election of 1980.
- egberts1 5y agoIn Martinez, CA (SF Bay Area) where most of Northern California oil refineries are located, didnt see any gas price dropped until a couple month after the 1980 election.
- UncleOxidant 5y agoYeah, IIRC that was mostly in '73 with the Arab oil embargo.
- WalterBright 5y agoThey continued right up until Reagan's EO.
- WalterBright 5y agoIn some places there were gluts due to the DOE deciding which gas stations got gas. Yes, the DOE was deciding this at the individual gas station level, and they messed it all up.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]