4 ms·
He was unpopular for a number of other reasons, some of which were just bad luck. Inflation was high, the economy was poor, there was a massive oil shortage, an
by Miraste 4y ago
He was unpopular for a number of other reasons, some of which were just bad luck. Inflation was high, the economy was poor, there was a massive oil shortage, and the Iranian hostage crisis went poorly. There were a lot of smaller issues too, like the 55mph speed limit. While he had good intentions and was far more forward thinking than other presidents, he wasn’t an adept administrator and didn’t manage to get buy-in on any of his plans. It’s another sad instance of good people making bad politicians.
- incanus77 4y ago> he wasn’t an adept administrator I can't find too much on this now except for the fact it happened, but initially Carter decided to buck tradition and not have a chief of staff, preferring instead a more level cabinet that could come to him as needed. I can't remember where I heard/read/saw this analysis, but it was cited as a major faux pas which led to him being completely inundated with competing priorities. The office of president is much more complex than that of the governorship of even a large state, and not having a trusted chief of staff who could help Carter prioritize led to a more ineffectual office.
- starkd 4y agoThere were stories of him personally doing scheduling charts for the White House Staff. That probably was an exageration that did not happen that often, but he was a technocrat. He loved getting involved in details. More evidence that engineers generally make poor politicians.
- snapetom 4y agoChris Matthews touches on this and other examples in Hardball. Carter is a great man, but just wasn't a very suave politician. Another example Matthews cites was getting rid of the presidential yacht. Sure it made for a few good public points, but it handicapped Carter in losing a historically valuable tool for many informal handshake political deals.
- JJMcJ 4y agoThe idea of a Cabinet that had direct and easy access to the President made sense when there were four or five people, as was the case early in American history. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Top_Left_Cabinet_Image.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Top_Left... C. Northcote Parkinson, of Parkinson's Law fame, has written on this, both in British and American history. The inner council seems to grow and is replaced as the leader's inner council by a smaller body over time.
- Waterluvian 4y agoA classic problem in politics: We need leaders because everyday people are often not informed or interested in the boring but important things. The sober choices that are often right but unsatisfying. But then a lot of us want our leaders to obsess over the little, inconsequential things we find to be important. And then we end up wondering if a candidate is someone you could have a beer with, and the exceptional candidates are seen as unpopular. I’ve always felt that politics, when working, should feel boring. And that one’s civic duty to be informed and vote should feel like actual effort. Like homework.
- version_five 4y agoRelated is the fact that most people who would be good politicians want nothing to do with politics and most that go into politics are the worst people to represent us. While i know it's too idealistic, I wish there could be some jury duty style model where real people are obliged to take on political duties
- Waterluvian 4y ago“Mother #*^%er.” “What’s wrong?” “Sigh. Just got this in the mail. It says I have to be president this year.”
- NoZebra120vClip 4y agoThis is not as far-fetched as it would seem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition The ancient Greeks pretty much appointed magistrates and others by lottery, and every citizen participated in a very direct democracy. The Greeks saw this as a counter to oligarchy. I'm not sure that today's federal government is very far off from oligarchical tendencies.
- tengwar2 4y agoYou can't generalise about ancient Greeks like that. Every polis (city state) had its own constitution, and they were more radically different than any we have now. There were some poleis which used sortition, yes, but others had something more recognisable to our voting system. And of course there were the Spartans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_Constitution.
- irrational 4y agoI’d rather have good people that are bad politicians than bad people being good politicians, which seems to be what we get the majority of the time.
- thr0waway001 4y agoGood always better than bad. I think we all agree on that. But good and ineffectual. I'm not sure I'd pick that over a dickhead who gets the job done.
- austinjp 4y agoSurely it depends very much on what job gets done?
- Forgeties79 4y agoI feel like that sort of reinforces his point tbh. But both of y’all are right on some level.
- Maursault 4y agoPresident Carter solved inflation, and it cost him the election, and President Reagan got the credit. Carter appointed Paul Volcker, an inflation hawk, as Fed chair in 1979. Volcker solved inflation by raising interest rates, causing two recessions, one of which was during Carter's re-election year. Reagan kept Volcker on for a short time before firing him, but Volcker got the job done, so it was President Carter that took inflation seriously and solved it with his hawkish Fed chair appointment. President Reagan gets credit for a booming economy, but it was President Carter that was responsible for that through massive deregulation. Reagan is thought of as a deregulator, but he only had two deregulations, one of which was Savings and Loan, which massively contributed to the 2008 mortgage crisis. Conservatives think back to the good old days of Reagan's two terms, but Reagan, seriously, didn't do shit, and everything everyone loves about that decade was solely due to the policies and decisions and sacrifices of President Carter. The man absolutely is a saint, and if there is any US President that could validly be canonized, it is him.
- Der_Einzige 4y agoFDR first (and the first lady) then Carter re: canonization.
- Maursault 4y agoI can't think of any miracles performed by FDR. Carter got Israel to return land to Egypt with the Camp David Accords, which is nuts when you think about it, created the Department of Education, and solved inflation. Running a successful Presidential campaign on peanuts with the Religious Right behind him could be one also, and I'm sure there are more with his nuclear military career, but three will suffice. And not for nothing, his initials are JC, so maybe canonization isn't quite good enough. If Gabriel ever retires, then perhaps Left Hand of God if it becomes available. Actually there may be some room, as both Jesus and Michael sit on the Right.
- lambdasquirrel 4y agoPretty much this. If there was ever a fundamental flaw of democratically-based systems, it's that people need to stop electing their leaders on the basis of how the economy is doing right now, at this moment.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y agoGlad you highlighted the luck part. The hostage crisis really did him in, despite the fact that, in the end, he actually negotiated to get all the hostages back safely, with the Algiers Accords being signed minutes after Reagan was inaugurated.
- starkd 4y agoWell, it could also be argued that the Iranians only came to the table in the end, because they knew they were not going to get nearly as much from Reagan administration than they would with Carter. Of course, Reagan was all to glad for Carter to wind it up before he took office
- ineptech 4y agoIt should be pointed out that a lot of people believe the hostage crisis was not just mismanagement or bad luck, but collusion between the Reagan campaign and Iranian leadership to delay resolving the crisis until after the election. I think it's now widely agreed that Iran wanted Reagan to win and extended the hostage crisis for that reason, and that Reagan's campaign had back-channel communication with the Iranian leadership; what's not known is whether he promised them anything. Congress investigated and concluded that there was no collusion, i.e. that Reagan's illegal arms sales to Iran were unrelated, but unsurprisingly, many are not convinced. More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_th... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis.
- buildbot 4y agoKissinger 100% committed treason by being the back channel here.
- flandish 4y agoIt’s a sure bet to assume anything Kissinger did was treason, murderous, or a war crime. Pissing on his grave, when nature takes its (slow) course, will be a goal for plenty, I am sure. In short: fuck that guy.
- JJMcJ 4y agoThe high inflation and poor economy flowed from in large part from the first oil crisis in 1973, and then the second one after the oil boycott following the embassy kidnapping and hostage crisis. The first oil crisis had nothing to do with Carter at all. The second oil crisis was in part started when Carter was strongarmed into admitting the deposed Shah into the USA for medical treatment, and definitely made worse when the Republicans secretly negotiated with Iran to give them goodies if they'd hold the hostages until Carter was defeated. They feared an "October Surprise" if release was obtained before the election. You will note that the Swissair plane returning the hostages was released for takeoff the moment Reagan was sworn in. Finally let's not forget he was mocked for calling himself a nuclear engineer, when that was exactly what he was in the Navy. Why Germany can have a Quantum Chemistry PhD as Chancellor, but any scientific training in for an American politician is regarded as a joke, is beyond me.
- fredsmith219 4y agoWell said. His intentions were good but the problems he faced were very difficult and his solutions were poor. I think that he made a mediocre president at best but an awesome former president.