10 ms·

It's a fallacy to believe that intelligence or competency in one field translates to competency in all fields. An admittedly intelligent and nice guy he wasn't

It's a fallacy to believe that intelligence or competency in one field translates to competency in all fields. An admittedly intelligent and nice guy he wasn't a particularly competent president. Looking at his term through the lense of sympathy rather than history gives a distorted picture.

coolso 5y ago
> Looking at his term through the lense of sympathy rather than history gives a distorted picture. In light of comparisons of the current President to him, the current meme seems to be to consider Carter “an actually very good, misunderstood President” in the hopes of neutering the insult.
DantesKite 5y ago
Herber Hoover is a brilliant example of this. Great engineer. Terrible president.
- jhbadger 5y ago
  Also translator (with his wife Lou) of Latin into English -- specifically Agricola's De Re Metallica (an early treatise on mining). Their 1912 edition (obviously published long before his presidency) is still the most common English translation of the work to this day.
darksaints 5y ago
Carter successfully deregulated the railroad industry, the trucking industry, the airline industry, and the craft brewing industry. A huge amount of the economic growth often attributed to his successors is actually due to his success in identifying sources of stagflation and systematically eliminating them. Carter was better than a good president, he was just a victim of shitty politics.
- toyg 5y ago
  Also one of the many victims of the short-termism that 4-year mandates inevitably produce. A US president never gets to see the results of his policies in the first mandate. Realistically, it takes a year just to get to grip with the duties, and by the time they're productive the midterms arrive and dramatically reduce space for bipartisan compromise. Once that's done, soon after it's time to gear up for re-election. Even if they manage to pass anything significant in those short windows of activity, new laws have to get into force (which can take a year), kickstart the various first-order and second-order effects (again time passes), and then go through some sort of statistical collection - itself typically a process that gives results over 6-18 months. US Presidents effectively get judged first and foremost on the day-to-day executive orders, which is why they tend to be keen on starting wars. If they secure re-election, only then they'll get to be judged on the actual legacy of their policies.
kzrdude 5y ago
The stories people tell of politicians are not exactly always fact-based. Well-known people, especially those who don't speak for themselves (in social media) they get a reputation that sticks.

coolso 5y ago

> Looking at his term through the lense of sympathy rather than history gives a distorted picture. In light of comparisons of the current President to him, the current meme seems to be to consider Carter “an actually very good, misunderstood President” in the hopes of neutering the insult.

DantesKite 5y ago

Herber Hoover is a brilliant example of this. Great engineer. Terrible president.

jhbadger 5y ago
Also translator (with his wife Lou) of Latin into English -- specifically Agricola's De Re Metallica (an early treatise on mining). Their 1912 edition (obviously published long before his presidency) is still the most common English translation of the work to this day.

darksaints 5y ago

Carter successfully deregulated the railroad industry, the trucking industry, the airline industry, and the craft brewing industry. A huge amount of the economic growth often attributed to his successors is actually due to his success in identifying sources of stagflation and systematically eliminating them. Carter was better than a good president, he was just a victim of shitty politics.

toyg 5y ago
Also one of the many victims of the short-termism that 4-year mandates inevitably produce. A US president never gets to see the results of his policies in the first mandate. Realistically, it takes a year just to get to grip with the duties, and by the time they're productive the midterms arrive and dramatically reduce space for bipartisan compromise. Once that's done, soon after it's time to gear up for re-election. Even if they manage to pass anything significant in those short windows of activity, new laws have to get into force (which can take a year), kickstart the various first-order and second-order effects (again time passes), and then go through some sort of statistical collection - itself typically a process that gives results over 6-18 months. US Presidents effectively get judged first and foremost on the day-to-day executive orders, which is why they tend to be keen on starting wars. If they secure re-election, only then they'll get to be judged on the actual legacy of their policies.

kzrdude 5y ago

The stories people tell of politicians are not exactly always fact-based. Well-known people, especially those who don't speak for themselves (in social media) they get a reputation that sticks.