3 ms·

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 m

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.
actually_a_dog 5y ago
Campaigning is marketing. Governing is management. They are very different skills. Very few people, much less politicians are good at both. And diplomacy is its own special thing.

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.

actually_a_dog 5y ago

Campaigning is marketing. Governing is management. They are very different skills. Very few people, much less politicians are good at both. And diplomacy is its own special thing.