7 ms·

Fact sheet about the program—- https://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/factsheets/CC-GW-Fact-Sheet-6_21_B.pdf https://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/fa

Fact sheet about the program—- https://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/factsheets/CC-GW-Fact-Sheet-6_21_B.pdf https://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/factsheets/CC-GW...

sdoering 5y ago
Thanks for the fact sheet. Quite an impact since 1986.
readthenotes1 5y ago
IMO, Carter is the 2nd best ex-President of the United States. (Washington is 1st because he was the first ex-President)
- throwaway6734 5y ago
  Carter is an incredibly underrated president as well: he appointed Volcker to the Fed Board & he began the military buildup that bloomed under Reagan.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    I think Carter is a decent human being, served his country, a devout Christian, and has done a lot of good in his post-presidency. But he was a terrible president. My father, a lifetime straight-ticket D voter, could not bring himself to vote for him a second time. The economy of the late 70s was a nightmare. High inflation, double-digit interest rates, low growth. Energy crisis (I remember sitting in school with most of the lights off and wearing winter coats because the heat was set so low). Iranian hostage crisis, and rescue debacle. It was not a good time.
    - lordnacho 5y ago
      Why is the president responsible for how the economy goes? To me it seems like one of those things that's easy to mess up but hard to improve. It's also the result of a lot of interactions, so blaming or crediting the president seems unfounded.
      - HarryHirsch 5y ago
        The president heads the executive and at the and of the day is responsible for setting industrial policy, economic policy and foreign relations. Of course he is responsible (but we all know that in truth the country is run by appointed civil servants, all of who are under 40 years old).
    - kwhitefoot 5y ago
      > The economy of the late 70s was a nightmare. And that was Carter's fault? I think you give him to much blame (or credit depending on your point of view). the idea that one person can have such rapid effects seems to me to be one of the most pernicious in politics. The causes of many of those late 70s problems were much earlier than Carter's presidency, And the oil crisis was largely over by then anyway.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        > rapid effects Absolutely. We often judge Presidents as though the state of the country today was defined by their decisions yesterday. Or even by their predecessors a few months or years ago. And they shouldn't avoid blame! They are in the most powerful seat in the US government. But at the same time, economic timescales are lengthy, and often more than 4 or 8 years. I get why: because the people pushing that framing are doing so as political PR (positive or negative). But we shouldn't confuse the inaccurate framing with the underlying truth.
        Retric 5y ago
        I think it’s reasonable to judge presidents for ~4-6 months after they take office to six months after the next guy takes office. Plenty of presidents left just before or after things when to shit, but you only get 4 years, including a lame duck period, which means moving quickly. Sure they don’t control the legislature but they do have quite a bit of leverage to make real compromises.
    - throwaway6734 5y ago
      High inflation was solved via Volcker nuking the economy under Reagan. Volcker was appointed by carter
- bigbillheck 5y ago
  Carter didn't own nearly as many people.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Carter no doubt has marketing behind the name and stellar executive teams at his various associated programs. But as far as I can tell, he's the only recent ex-President who's kept up a similar pace of work and results since: everyone else finishes and retires. His book was a decent read too. In a "some things are just right and good" way. https://www.amazon.com/Hour-Before-Daylight-Memories-Boyhood/dp/0743211995/ https://www.amazon.com/Hour-Before-Daylight-Memories-Boyhood...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- baybal2 5y ago
  Democratic party transformation from the party of the deep south, to a hipster, liberal one in just around 1 decade is truly remarkable. Remember, Carter won the vote in 1976! Just few years after the Vietnam war.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    .. I put that at about a five decade period? "Hipster" wasn't really a thing until about the Obama era, and the "party of the deep south" ended round about the Civil Rights Act? Carter lost due to (a) oil crisis inflation driven by OPEC and (b) the botched military operation in Iran, neither of which outcomes were really within his control. (The emphasis on Benghazi used against Hilary Clinton was clearly driven by this strategy having worked previously)
    - serf 5y ago
      >"Hipster" wasn't really a thing until about the Obama era, and the "party of the deep south" ended round about the Civil Rights Act? is hipster now some politcal term? the meaning I'm familiar with is from the 1940s, it just became in vogue again recently.
- staticautomatic 5y ago
  He’s pretty good as presidents who sponsored genocides go (East Timor, for those who don’t know).
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    I actually don't know the details for East Timor, but, presumably Carter didn't personally sponsor this, like as a hobby after he was President or something - instead it was US government policy and it remained US government policy to turn a blind eye to what was happening in East Timor and presumably as the US President receives high quality global intelligence briefings Carter will have had a pretty good idea what it was turning a blind eye to.
    - macintux 5y ago
      It seems an unfortunate truth that moral purity is impossible for the leaders of the largest countries. Every decision is made with complex trade-offs and regrettable consequences even for the “right” choice.
      - creato 5y ago
        And this is why it is so destructive when low effort peanut gallery commentary gains traction in society.
        macintux 5y ago
        The era of the soundbite has radically transformed politics, and definitely not for the better.
      - staticautomatic 5y ago
        It’s hard for me to understand how holding people to account for sponsoring genocides means holding them to an impossible standard of moral purity. This strikes me as a straw man.
        5y ago
- lisper 5y ago
  First is not necessarily best. But Washington deserves credit for setting the precedent of becoming an ex-president voluntarily. That was a big deal at the time.
  - brnt 5y ago
    And seems to be again...
    - lisper 5y ago
      Indeed. :-(
  - jml7c5 5y ago
    It's worth noting that Washington simply didn't want to be president any more. Leaving politics was also relief of his personal burden, rather than solely a noble sacrifice for republican values. He was exhausted after years of public service, his health was growing worse, and he was deeply frustrated by the mismanagement of his farm. In short: he was burnt out and wanted well-earned rest. That isn't to say he was blind to the dangerous precedent that would be set by remaining president until death. After all, he was president of the Society of the Cincinnati. (Named after Lucius Cincinnatus, a Roman who was given emergency dictatorial powers (two times?), which he relinquished when they were no longer necessary.) But he didn't want to remain president anyway, so the decision was not a fraught one. Source: half-remembered details from Ron Chernow's "Washington: A Life"
- wnoise 5y ago
  He also signed into law home brewing, which greatly improved beer in the U.S.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  John Quincy Adams. After retiring from the Presidency, he was elected to the House of Representatives, where he was one of the leading opponents of slavery. Washington didn't do much after retiring, because he died soon after.
ahazred8ta 5y ago
Their newsletter is "The Guinea Worm Wrap-Up"? That's painful in more ways than one. Fortunately the Guinea Worm is on its last legs. (ahem)

Fact sheet about the program—- https://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/factsheets/CC-GW-Fact-Sheet-6_21_B.pdf https://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/factsheets/CC-GW...

sdoering 5y ago

Thanks for the fact sheet. Quite an impact since 1986.

readthenotes1 5y ago

IMO, Carter is the 2nd best ex-President of the United States. (Washington is 1st because he was the first ex-President)

throwaway6734 5y ago
Carter is an incredibly underrated president as well: he appointed Volcker to the Fed Board & he began the military buildup that bloomed under Reagan.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  I think Carter is a decent human being, served his country, a devout Christian, and has done a lot of good in his post-presidency. But he was a terrible president. My father, a lifetime straight-ticket D voter, could not bring himself to vote for him a second time. The economy of the late 70s was a nightmare. High inflation, double-digit interest rates, low growth. Energy crisis (I remember sitting in school with most of the lights off and wearing winter coats because the heat was set so low). Iranian hostage crisis, and rescue debacle. It was not a good time.
  - lordnacho 5y ago
    Why is the president responsible for how the economy goes? To me it seems like one of those things that's easy to mess up but hard to improve. It's also the result of a lot of interactions, so blaming or crediting the president seems unfounded.
    - HarryHirsch 5y ago
      The president heads the executive and at the and of the day is responsible for setting industrial policy, economic policy and foreign relations. Of course he is responsible (but we all know that in truth the country is run by appointed civil servants, all of who are under 40 years old).
  - kwhitefoot 5y ago
    > The economy of the late 70s was a nightmare. And that was Carter's fault? I think you give him to much blame (or credit depending on your point of view). the idea that one person can have such rapid effects seems to me to be one of the most pernicious in politics. The causes of many of those late 70s problems were much earlier than Carter's presidency, And the oil crisis was largely over by then anyway.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      > rapid effects Absolutely. We often judge Presidents as though the state of the country today was defined by their decisions yesterday. Or even by their predecessors a few months or years ago. And they shouldn't avoid blame! They are in the most powerful seat in the US government. But at the same time, economic timescales are lengthy, and often more than 4 or 8 years. I get why: because the people pushing that framing are doing so as political PR (positive or negative). But we shouldn't confuse the inaccurate framing with the underlying truth.
      - Retric 5y ago
        I think it’s reasonable to judge presidents for ~4-6 months after they take office to six months after the next guy takes office. Plenty of presidents left just before or after things when to shit, but you only get 4 years, including a lame duck period, which means moving quickly. Sure they don’t control the legislature but they do have quite a bit of leverage to make real compromises.
  - throwaway6734 5y ago
    High inflation was solved via Volcker nuking the economy under Reagan. Volcker was appointed by carter
bigbillheck 5y ago
Carter didn't own nearly as many people.
ethbr0 5y ago
Carter no doubt has marketing behind the name and stellar executive teams at his various associated programs. But as far as I can tell, he's the only recent ex-President who's kept up a similar pace of work and results since: everyone else finishes and retires. His book was a decent read too. In a "some things are just right and good" way. https://www.amazon.com/Hour-Before-Daylight-Memories-Boyhood/dp/0743211995/ https://www.amazon.com/Hour-Before-Daylight-Memories-Boyhood...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
baybal2 5y ago
Democratic party transformation from the party of the deep south, to a hipster, liberal one in just around 1 decade is truly remarkable. Remember, Carter won the vote in 1976! Just few years after the Vietnam war.
- pjc50 5y ago
  .. I put that at about a five decade period? "Hipster" wasn't really a thing until about the Obama era, and the "party of the deep south" ended round about the Civil Rights Act? Carter lost due to (a) oil crisis inflation driven by OPEC and (b) the botched military operation in Iran, neither of which outcomes were really within his control. (The emphasis on Benghazi used against Hilary Clinton was clearly driven by this strategy having worked previously)
  - serf 5y ago
    >"Hipster" wasn't really a thing until about the Obama era, and the "party of the deep south" ended round about the Civil Rights Act? is hipster now some politcal term? the meaning I'm familiar with is from the 1940s, it just became in vogue again recently.
staticautomatic 5y ago
He’s pretty good as presidents who sponsored genocides go (East Timor, for those who don’t know).
- tialaramex 5y ago
  I actually don't know the details for East Timor, but, presumably Carter didn't personally sponsor this, like as a hobby after he was President or something - instead it was US government policy and it remained US government policy to turn a blind eye to what was happening in East Timor and presumably as the US President receives high quality global intelligence briefings Carter will have had a pretty good idea what it was turning a blind eye to.
  - macintux 5y ago
    It seems an unfortunate truth that moral purity is impossible for the leaders of the largest countries. Every decision is made with complex trade-offs and regrettable consequences even for the “right” choice.
    - creato 5y ago
      And this is why it is so destructive when low effort peanut gallery commentary gains traction in society.
      - macintux 5y ago
        The era of the soundbite has radically transformed politics, and definitely not for the better.
    - staticautomatic 5y ago
      It’s hard for me to understand how holding people to account for sponsoring genocides means holding them to an impossible standard of moral purity. This strikes me as a straw man.
      - 5y ago
lisper 5y ago
First is not necessarily best. But Washington deserves credit for setting the precedent of becoming an ex-president voluntarily. That was a big deal at the time.
- brnt 5y ago
  And seems to be again...
  - lisper 5y ago
    Indeed. :-(
- jml7c5 5y ago
  It's worth noting that Washington simply didn't want to be president any more. Leaving politics was also relief of his personal burden, rather than solely a noble sacrifice for republican values. He was exhausted after years of public service, his health was growing worse, and he was deeply frustrated by the mismanagement of his farm. In short: he was burnt out and wanted well-earned rest. That isn't to say he was blind to the dangerous precedent that would be set by remaining president until death. After all, he was president of the Society of the Cincinnati. (Named after Lucius Cincinnatus, a Roman who was given emergency dictatorial powers (two times?), which he relinquished when they were no longer necessary.) But he didn't want to remain president anyway, so the decision was not a fraught one. Source: half-remembered details from Ron Chernow's "Washington: A Life"
wnoise 5y ago
He also signed into law home brewing, which greatly improved beer in the U.S.
DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
John Quincy Adams. After retiring from the Presidency, he was elected to the House of Representatives, where he was one of the leading opponents of slavery. Washington didn't do much after retiring, because he died soon after.

ahazred8ta 5y ago

Their newsletter is "The Guinea Worm Wrap-Up"? That's painful in more ways than one. Fortunately the Guinea Worm is on its last legs. (ahem)