5 ms·

Jimmy Carter is an interesting US president that I like and yet don't understand. After just 1 term he remarkably lost to Reagan. I just never quite understood

Jimmy Carter is an interesting US president that I like and yet don't understand. After just 1 term he remarkably lost to Reagan. I just never quite understood why he lost so badly.

mytailorisrich 5y ago
Bad economy, high inflation, energy crisis, and pretty bad international context (Iran, Afghanistan).
- willnonya 5y ago
  - pyronik19 5y ago
- smt88 5y ago
  This is the correct answer. Carter would have lost to a significantly worse candidate than Reagan if they hadn't had Reagan. Studies don't show that Americans vote much based on foreign policy, but they certainly crush the current president and Congress when the economy is bad and inflation is high. It doesn't matter whether he did anything to cause it or not.
  - adventured 5y ago
    Which is one big reason why Biden's polls are so horrific presently (high inflation, negative wage growth, very serious concerns about the future including cost of living; so he's getting the blame and is viewed as being not very competent).
    - UncleOxidant 5y ago
      Yes, in many ways this is feeling like a re-run of the late 70s. Biden has done a competent job, especially given the hand he was dealt. But the electorate is blaming Biden for a lot of things that are outside of his control - this inflation, for example, it's mostly due to the pandemic, but the trade wars started by the previous president would have led to inflation even without the pandemic. Russia invading Ukraine seems to rhyme with the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan in 1980. Carter was not to blame for the latter and neither is Biden to blame for the former, but there was and will be political fallout.
  - incomingpain 5y ago
    >This is the correct answer. Carter would have lost to a significantly worse candidate than Reagan if they hadn't had Reagan. Do you feel like there's current events comparison of Carter vs Biden? >but they certainly crush the current president and Congress when the economy is bad and inflation is high. Economy is doing pretty good, starting to kick in post-pandemic recovery boost. https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp-growth-rate?continent=world https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp-growth-rate?co... Yes inflation is out of control but economy is looking great right now. >It doesn't matter whether he did anything to cause it or not. I find that the case. When the economy is doing well, both sides claim success. Current president claims his actions and previous president claims older actions took some time to work out. When the economy isn't doing well, both sides claim not me. It was the other guy's fault.
ChuckNorris89 5y ago
Because in politics winning or losing elections has nothing to do with competence but with popularity and how good you are at moving the blame off yourself to your competitors.
- willnonya 5y ago
  So, you're saying it has nothing to do with competence but everything to do with, competence? Just because the things that makes politicians successful don't make for particularly good people doesn't negate Carter's lack of proficiency in the field.
  - jpgvm 5y ago
    There is a big difference between being proficient at managing a countries affairs and being popular by the means you manage the countries affairs. In the modern age this is even more apparent because of the media and how stupidly polarising it is compared to the era of Carter, Reagan and Nixon. Best example that comes to mind is Kevin Rudd - Prime Minister of Australia. Supremely competent, both as a diplomat but also as a leader. However his popularity was destroyed by a campaign but Rupert Murdoch after he started to implement his campaign promise of a national fibre-to-the-home network. Ironically most people think it was his mining "super-tax" that turned the media against him but that was very much just a cover-up for the real reason Murdoch wanted him out. Carter is different because the sentiment at the time was such there really wasn't a lot he could do. No ammount of competency was going to rescue the mess Nixon created. By decoupling the worlds currency system from gold and simultanously creating a situation where domestic oil production peaked the oil crisis was bound to happen eventually. The devaluation of the USD caused real loss in incomes from the middle-eastern countries and they (perhaps rightfully?) used this leverage to ratchet up prices and secure their own futures at the expense of global economic activity. They both fucked up though because the resulting oil glut really screwed the middle east in the following decade. Either way, I don't buy the argument that Carter was incompetent because he didn't win a second term. I don't think anyone could have in those conditions and I also don't think he really had the power to change them. He did a decent job of implementing policies that would eventually shield the US from OPEC shenanigans but they took a long time to come to fruition, much too late to save his second term.
OneLeggedCat 5y ago
Anyone would have lost to Reagan. He was extremely charismatic.
recuter 5y ago
“I can’t believe Reagan won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Yes, I know the quote is paraphrased and was originally about Nixon. I just find this befuddlement why Jimmy Carter lost amusing. Man got very badly played: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_wi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_oil_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_oil_crisis He was also attacked by a bunny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_rabbit_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_rabbit_incident
- wallfacer120 5y ago
  How is the 79 oil crisis an example of Carter getting "played" exactly?
  - DonHopkins 5y ago
    Or the sensationalized "killer rabbit attack" for that matter. The fact that someone would bend over backwards to misinterpret a sensationalized incident with a wild animal as Carter "being played" says more about that person's preconceived political ideology than Carter's, and identifies them as one of Carter's "political and ideological opponents". How exactly does a swimming rabbit "play" a human being, or frame him as hapless and enfeebled? >The incident with the rabbit became fodder for political and ideological opponents who wanted to frame Carter's presidency as hapless and enfeebled, although the event's proximity to the U.S. release of the comedy feature film Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which includes scenes of a killer rabbit slaying humans, led to some people describing Carter as having "fended off a killer rabbit" instead. To get back to the actual point of this discussion, why do you believe that the sensationalized story about Carter "being attacked by a bunny" is more indicative of whether Carter was hapless, enfeebled, or getting played, than the objective historical fact that he bravely and selflessly risked his own life and health by saving a Canadian nuclear reactor after a meltdown? Edit: I saw that. You just edited your comment to tell me that editing my comment (to add more information) is bad form, then you quickly edited your comment again to remove that remark after you remembered that was exactly what you were doing and have already done several times in this discussion, yourself (to change the meaning of your post). And that shows your intellectual dishonesty. So please stick to the discussion topic and reply to the points I raised, instead of hypocritically admonishing me not to do exactly what you've already just done repeatedly (like your "Racism bad" addendum -- we all already know that, but your original "So?" post sounded like you didn't believe that, so you had to add that obvious disclaimer, followed by more racism apologetic non-sequiturs, attempting to excuse Reagan's racism by pointing out that he used to be a Democrat). Denying and making excuses and carrying the water for racism is much worse form than editing comments, but "there you go again", to quote Reagan.
CalChris 5y ago
Reagan was an entertainer for people who wanted entertainment. Carter was a decent man replaced by a vain man.
- drewcoo 5y ago
  They were both neoliberals who pushed deregulation. And both were union-busters. Carter was the beginning of that trend, in fact, putting an end to FDR's legacy. Reagan just did it more palatably, with a smile and a joke.
  - CalChris 5y ago
    Despite being a union member and president of the SAG, Reagan is well known for firing the air traffic controllers. In California, he was against the UFW's grape boycott. As governor, he vetoed the legislation which would have given the farm workers the right to organize. Reagan was unquestionably anti-labor despite perversely being inducted into the Labor Hall of Fame by Trump's Labor Secretary. Carter was the beginning of none of this.
wallfacer120 5y ago
Because voters reason like language models, not like symbolic ais.
UncleOxidant 5y ago
It was mostly due to the Iranian hostage crisis. Every night on TV there was a count "Day 123: America held hostage!" - this was when the ABC news show Nightline with Ted Koppel got it's start. Also, the economy wasn't great. We had inflation - though to be fair that started during the Nixon/Ford admins and was largely due to 1) Vietnam war spending and 2) the Arab oil embargo. Unemployment was also fairly high (around this time the term 'stagflation' was coined.) Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Fed chairman in '79 with the full knowledge that Volcker planned to significantly raise interest rates in order to curb inflation - in fact, Volcker did not expect to be chosen as Fed chairman because he made it clear to Carter in his interview that he would significantly raise rates. By the time of the election the Fed rate was around 13% which began to slow the economy significantly. Add to this that Carter was very honest with the American people that they needed to consume less and develop alternative forms of energy to become less dependent on authoritarian regimes. Well, it was all too much for most of the electorate. Carter did the hard things that needed to be done. Volcker raising interest rates was absolutely the right thing to do and it did quell inflation a few years down the road, but Carter bore the brunt of the immediate political fallout. Carter was thinking further ahead than probably any president in my lifetime (from JFK through Biden). He was the first president to take climate change seriously. If we would've listened to him I think we wouldn't be in a lot of the messes we're in now. But American politics is a short-term game... and it's even moreso now than it was then.
- pstuart 5y ago
  And when discussing that hostage crisis we would be remiss if we did not include the October Surprise that ensured said crisis would hurt Carter: https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/ronald-reagan-october-surprise-carter-iran-hostage-crisis-conspiracy https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/ronald-reagan-october-surpris...
spaetzleesser 5y ago
"I just never quite understood why he lost so badly." The hostage crisis probably broke him (the rescue attempt was a total disaster. Not his fault but it looked terrible) plus the inflation fighting Volker did. Reagan was also an excellent communicator. Hard to campaign against a guy like him.
indymike 5y ago
> After just 1 term he remarkably lost to Reagan. American voters are very unforgiving to bad economies and bad foreign policy outcomes. Carter was the victim of both, and Reagan was a formidable candidate.

Jimmy Carter is an interesting US president that I like and yet don't understand. After just 1 term he remarkably lost to Reagan. I just never quite understood why he lost so badly.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

Bad economy, high inflation, energy crisis, and pretty bad international context (Iran, Afghanistan).

willnonya 5y ago
- pyronik19 5y ago
smt88 5y ago
This is the correct answer. Carter would have lost to a significantly worse candidate than Reagan if they hadn't had Reagan. Studies don't show that Americans vote much based on foreign policy, but they certainly crush the current president and Congress when the economy is bad and inflation is high. It doesn't matter whether he did anything to cause it or not.
- adventured 5y ago
  Which is one big reason why Biden's polls are so horrific presently (high inflation, negative wage growth, very serious concerns about the future including cost of living; so he's getting the blame and is viewed as being not very competent).
  - UncleOxidant 5y ago
    Yes, in many ways this is feeling like a re-run of the late 70s. Biden has done a competent job, especially given the hand he was dealt. But the electorate is blaming Biden for a lot of things that are outside of his control - this inflation, for example, it's mostly due to the pandemic, but the trade wars started by the previous president would have led to inflation even without the pandemic. Russia invading Ukraine seems to rhyme with the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan in 1980. Carter was not to blame for the latter and neither is Biden to blame for the former, but there was and will be political fallout.
- incomingpain 5y ago
  >This is the correct answer. Carter would have lost to a significantly worse candidate than Reagan if they hadn't had Reagan. Do you feel like there's current events comparison of Carter vs Biden? >but they certainly crush the current president and Congress when the economy is bad and inflation is high. Economy is doing pretty good, starting to kick in post-pandemic recovery boost. https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp-growth-rate?continent=world https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp-growth-rate?co... Yes inflation is out of control but economy is looking great right now. >It doesn't matter whether he did anything to cause it or not. I find that the case. When the economy is doing well, both sides claim success. Current president claims his actions and previous president claims older actions took some time to work out. When the economy isn't doing well, both sides claim not me. It was the other guy's fault.

ChuckNorris89 5y ago

Because in politics winning or losing elections has nothing to do with competence but with popularity and how good you are at moving the blame off yourself to your competitors.

willnonya 5y ago
So, you're saying it has nothing to do with competence but everything to do with, competence? Just because the things that makes politicians successful don't make for particularly good people doesn't negate Carter's lack of proficiency in the field.
- jpgvm 5y ago
  There is a big difference between being proficient at managing a countries affairs and being popular by the means you manage the countries affairs. In the modern age this is even more apparent because of the media and how stupidly polarising it is compared to the era of Carter, Reagan and Nixon. Best example that comes to mind is Kevin Rudd - Prime Minister of Australia. Supremely competent, both as a diplomat but also as a leader. However his popularity was destroyed by a campaign but Rupert Murdoch after he started to implement his campaign promise of a national fibre-to-the-home network. Ironically most people think it was his mining "super-tax" that turned the media against him but that was very much just a cover-up for the real reason Murdoch wanted him out. Carter is different because the sentiment at the time was such there really wasn't a lot he could do. No ammount of competency was going to rescue the mess Nixon created. By decoupling the worlds currency system from gold and simultanously creating a situation where domestic oil production peaked the oil crisis was bound to happen eventually. The devaluation of the USD caused real loss in incomes from the middle-eastern countries and they (perhaps rightfully?) used this leverage to ratchet up prices and secure their own futures at the expense of global economic activity. They both fucked up though because the resulting oil glut really screwed the middle east in the following decade. Either way, I don't buy the argument that Carter was incompetent because he didn't win a second term. I don't think anyone could have in those conditions and I also don't think he really had the power to change them. He did a decent job of implementing policies that would eventually shield the US from OPEC shenanigans but they took a long time to come to fruition, much too late to save his second term.

OneLeggedCat 5y ago

Anyone would have lost to Reagan. He was extremely charismatic.

recuter 5y ago

“I can’t believe Reagan won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Yes, I know the quote is paraphrased and was originally about Nixon. I just find this befuddlement why Jimmy Carter lost amusing. Man got very badly played: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_wi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_oil_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_oil_crisis He was also attacked by a bunny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_rabbit_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_rabbit_incident

wallfacer120 5y ago
How is the 79 oil crisis an example of Carter getting "played" exactly?
- DonHopkins 5y ago
  Or the sensationalized "killer rabbit attack" for that matter. The fact that someone would bend over backwards to misinterpret a sensationalized incident with a wild animal as Carter "being played" says more about that person's preconceived political ideology than Carter's, and identifies them as one of Carter's "political and ideological opponents". How exactly does a swimming rabbit "play" a human being, or frame him as hapless and enfeebled? >The incident with the rabbit became fodder for political and ideological opponents who wanted to frame Carter's presidency as hapless and enfeebled, although the event's proximity to the U.S. release of the comedy feature film Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which includes scenes of a killer rabbit slaying humans, led to some people describing Carter as having "fended off a killer rabbit" instead. To get back to the actual point of this discussion, why do you believe that the sensationalized story about Carter "being attacked by a bunny" is more indicative of whether Carter was hapless, enfeebled, or getting played, than the objective historical fact that he bravely and selflessly risked his own life and health by saving a Canadian nuclear reactor after a meltdown? Edit: I saw that. You just edited your comment to tell me that editing my comment (to add more information) is bad form, then you quickly edited your comment again to remove that remark after you remembered that was exactly what you were doing and have already done several times in this discussion, yourself (to change the meaning of your post). And that shows your intellectual dishonesty. So please stick to the discussion topic and reply to the points I raised, instead of hypocritically admonishing me not to do exactly what you've already just done repeatedly (like your "Racism bad" addendum -- we all already know that, but your original "So?" post sounded like you didn't believe that, so you had to add that obvious disclaimer, followed by more racism apologetic non-sequiturs, attempting to excuse Reagan's racism by pointing out that he used to be a Democrat). Denying and making excuses and carrying the water for racism is much worse form than editing comments, but "there you go again", to quote Reagan.

CalChris 5y ago

Reagan was an entertainer for people who wanted entertainment. Carter was a decent man replaced by a vain man.

drewcoo 5y ago
They were both neoliberals who pushed deregulation. And both were union-busters. Carter was the beginning of that trend, in fact, putting an end to FDR's legacy. Reagan just did it more palatably, with a smile and a joke.
- CalChris 5y ago
  Despite being a union member and president of the SAG, Reagan is well known for firing the air traffic controllers. In California, he was against the UFW's grape boycott. As governor, he vetoed the legislation which would have given the farm workers the right to organize. Reagan was unquestionably anti-labor despite perversely being inducted into the Labor Hall of Fame by Trump's Labor Secretary. Carter was the beginning of none of this.

wallfacer120 5y ago

Because voters reason like language models, not like symbolic ais.

UncleOxidant 5y ago

It was mostly due to the Iranian hostage crisis. Every night on TV there was a count "Day 123: America held hostage!" - this was when the ABC news show Nightline with Ted Koppel got it's start. Also, the economy wasn't great. We had inflation - though to be fair that started during the Nixon/Ford admins and was largely due to 1) Vietnam war spending and 2) the Arab oil embargo. Unemployment was also fairly high (around this time the term 'stagflation' was coined.) Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Fed chairman in '79 with the full knowledge that Volcker planned to significantly raise interest rates in order to curb inflation - in fact, Volcker did not expect to be chosen as Fed chairman because he made it clear to Carter in his interview that he would significantly raise rates. By the time of the election the Fed rate was around 13% which began to slow the economy significantly. Add to this that Carter was very honest with the American people that they needed to consume less and develop alternative forms of energy to become less dependent on authoritarian regimes. Well, it was all too much for most of the electorate. Carter did the hard things that needed to be done. Volcker raising interest rates was absolutely the right thing to do and it did quell inflation a few years down the road, but Carter bore the brunt of the immediate political fallout. Carter was thinking further ahead than probably any president in my lifetime (from JFK through Biden). He was the first president to take climate change seriously. If we would've listened to him I think we wouldn't be in a lot of the messes we're in now. But American politics is a short-term game... and it's even moreso now than it was then.

pstuart 5y ago
And when discussing that hostage crisis we would be remiss if we did not include the October Surprise that ensured said crisis would hurt Carter: https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/ronald-reagan-october-surprise-carter-iran-hostage-crisis-conspiracy https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/ronald-reagan-october-surpris...

spaetzleesser 5y ago

"I just never quite understood why he lost so badly." The hostage crisis probably broke him (the rescue attempt was a total disaster. Not his fault but it looked terrible) plus the inflation fighting Volker did. Reagan was also an excellent communicator. Hard to campaign against a guy like him.

indymike 5y ago

> After just 1 term he remarkably lost to Reagan. American voters are very unforgiving to bad economies and bad foreign policy outcomes. Carter was the victim of both, and Reagan was a formidable candidate.