4 ms·

> 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 ha

> 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 ago
There 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 ago
Chris 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 ago
The 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.

starkd 4y ago

There 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 ago

Chris 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 ago

The 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.