5 ms·

Unless you have sources, I don't think there's much evidence either that he fought big money or was driven out of office by them. He lost primarily because the

Unless you have sources, I don't think there's much evidence either that he fought big money or was driven out of office by them. He lost primarily because the economy was bad in the second half of his term, with inflation and oil supply shocks. Also, his adminstration botched the handling of the Iranian revolution, which lead to the hostage crisis, a huge public debacle. He was a competent president, but not flashy, and presidents are not guaranteed a second term. So I don't think we need to imagine shadowy corporate interests to explain the election

wkat4242 4y ago
It was mainly my thought because I noticed he campaigned against the space shuttle and other big projects (though eventually he turned on this for disarmament reasons, Ars Technica had an article on this a couple weeks ago). But you're right, it's more how I imagine American politics than anything else.
wefarrell 4y ago
Personally I don’t think the US should ever be expected to handle any foreign revolutions.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  This is a not-unreasonable position without context, but I think the American public reasonably expects the American president to handle foreign revolutions vis-a-vis hostage taking.
- peteforde 4y ago
  That's a tricky position to hold, because they keep doin' them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wIOqHSsV9c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wIOqHSsV9c
- blululu 4y ago
  The Iranian revolution was not a big issue in the election. It was the fact that American embassy staff was held at gunpoint for nearly two years so they could put the Shah on Trial. People were not happy about that.
  - wefarrell 4y ago
    I get it but what did they expect Carter to do? Secretly sell Iran stinger missiles and use the proceeds to fund a civil war in Nicaragua while supplying Saddam Hussein weapons for his invasion of Iran?
  - starkd 4y ago
    What are you talking about? It was literally the main news item for the second half of his term. Every evening Walter Cronkite began his broadcast with "day xxx of the hostage crisis". The administration was consumed by it. It also didn't help that Carter ordered a military rescue option that ended in disaster. The Iranians shot down our helicopter.
    - blululu 4y ago
      To clarify: it was the hostages that upset people - not the revolution. The revolution led to the hostages but it wasn't a big news item on its own. Walter Cronkite focused on day four hundred and something of the hostage crisis. The revolution itself did not get nearly as much attention. None of the cold war era revolutions that went for or against American foreign interests were that big of issues in American Electoral politics. Eisenhower lost Cuba, Ford lost Angola, Reagan lost half of Latin America, but the one we remember is is the one with the hostages.
      - starkd 4y ago
        Good point. Although the Iran revolution was slightly more in the news with the drama about the shah of Iran. He was ill with cancer. Carter would not allow him into US for treatment, so he had to go to Mexico. I think he eventually got into US though, because Mexico could not care for him. The shah of Iran had quite a following among many. He sort of the royal family of the middle east.
bsenftner 4y ago
> I don't think there's much evidence either that he fought big money or was driven out of office by them. Although "big money" is different people and different corporations now, they've pretty much always, in last 70+ years, acted in concert with the Republican Party. And that is exactly who drove him out of office, with activities such as illegally negotiating with Iran during the election to withhold the hostages until after the election, so the GOP could lord the hostage situation over the American public. That's just the tip, and the situation is exponentially more advanced today. Big Business, as we know it today, didn't even exist during Carter's Administration. Mom and Pop, family companies were still the majority then.
- starkd 4y ago
  >> Big Business, as we know it today, didn't exist during the Carter's Administration That's a good one. I think Big business has been in full control of both parties for most of the 20th century. It's just two sides of the same coin.
  - bsenftner 4y ago
    During the Carter Administration, the majority of business within the United States was family owned businesses. The Reagan Administration and 8 years changed all that to the majority of businesses being owned by corporate conglomerates.
    - starkd 4y ago
      Globalization was already well on its way before the Reagan administration. Nixon's visit to China did a lot to change the trade landscape. Even in 1979, it seemed like everything was "made in China". It just became cheaper to do things overseas. There's a famous site that pins it the date at 1971: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

wkat4242 4y ago

It was mainly my thought because I noticed he campaigned against the space shuttle and other big projects (though eventually he turned on this for disarmament reasons, Ars Technica had an article on this a couple weeks ago). But you're right, it's more how I imagine American politics than anything else.

wefarrell 4y ago

Personally I don’t think the US should ever be expected to handle any foreign revolutions.

woodruffw 4y ago
This is a not-unreasonable position without context, but I think the American public reasonably expects the American president to handle foreign revolutions vis-a-vis hostage taking.
peteforde 4y ago
That's a tricky position to hold, because they keep doin' them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wIOqHSsV9c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wIOqHSsV9c
blululu 4y ago
The Iranian revolution was not a big issue in the election. It was the fact that American embassy staff was held at gunpoint for nearly two years so they could put the Shah on Trial. People were not happy about that.
- wefarrell 4y ago
  I get it but what did they expect Carter to do? Secretly sell Iran stinger missiles and use the proceeds to fund a civil war in Nicaragua while supplying Saddam Hussein weapons for his invasion of Iran?
- starkd 4y ago
  What are you talking about? It was literally the main news item for the second half of his term. Every evening Walter Cronkite began his broadcast with "day xxx of the hostage crisis". The administration was consumed by it. It also didn't help that Carter ordered a military rescue option that ended in disaster. The Iranians shot down our helicopter.
  - blululu 4y ago
    To clarify: it was the hostages that upset people - not the revolution. The revolution led to the hostages but it wasn't a big news item on its own. Walter Cronkite focused on day four hundred and something of the hostage crisis. The revolution itself did not get nearly as much attention. None of the cold war era revolutions that went for or against American foreign interests were that big of issues in American Electoral politics. Eisenhower lost Cuba, Ford lost Angola, Reagan lost half of Latin America, but the one we remember is is the one with the hostages.
    - starkd 4y ago
      Good point. Although the Iran revolution was slightly more in the news with the drama about the shah of Iran. He was ill with cancer. Carter would not allow him into US for treatment, so he had to go to Mexico. I think he eventually got into US though, because Mexico could not care for him. The shah of Iran had quite a following among many. He sort of the royal family of the middle east.

bsenftner 4y ago

> I don't think there's much evidence either that he fought big money or was driven out of office by them. Although "big money" is different people and different corporations now, they've pretty much always, in last 70+ years, acted in concert with the Republican Party. And that is exactly who drove him out of office, with activities such as illegally negotiating with Iran during the election to withhold the hostages until after the election, so the GOP could lord the hostage situation over the American public. That's just the tip, and the situation is exponentially more advanced today. Big Business, as we know it today, didn't even exist during Carter's Administration. Mom and Pop, family companies were still the majority then.

starkd 4y ago
>> Big Business, as we know it today, didn't exist during the Carter's Administration That's a good one. I think Big business has been in full control of both parties for most of the 20th century. It's just two sides of the same coin.
- bsenftner 4y ago
  During the Carter Administration, the majority of business within the United States was family owned businesses. The Reagan Administration and 8 years changed all that to the majority of businesses being owned by corporate conglomerates.
  - starkd 4y ago
    Globalization was already well on its way before the Reagan administration. Nixon's visit to China did a lot to change the trade landscape. Even in 1979, it seemed like everything was "made in China". It just became cheaper to do things overseas. There's a famous site that pins it the date at 1971: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/