Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The un-celebrity president: Jimmy Carter shuns riches, lives modestly

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 108 posts

Re: The un-celebrity president: Jimmy Carter shuns riches, lives modestly

#31

Post by pulisse »

rectang wrote: post #25
m_alexgr wrote: post #21

Jimmy has his priorities straight. A humble man who tells the truth. And knows what is most important in this life. Hint: it's neither wealth nor power.

I get you, but rhetorical power is just another form of power. Carter maximizes the power of his truths by eschewing wealth and direct organizational power.

It's true (pretty much by definition) that rhetorical power is a form of power. But it's a further, cynical step to conclude that if someone acts in a way that confers rhetorical authority, they must be doing so just for the sake of that authority. You're assuming away the possibility that someone might be genuinely acting, at least in part, from principle.

Re: The un-celebrity president: Jimmy Carter shuns riches, lives modestly

#32

Post by iambateman »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #19
nabla9 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carter succeeded in freeing the Hostages. Carter's negotiations lead to the release of the hostages on the day Reagan was inaugurated. Iranians were deliberatively delaying the release because Carter was literally the the face of great Satan for them.

Either that, or Reagan made a deal with Khomeni to delay the release of the hostages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_th...

It’s an interesting theory but that article points out that the Senate did an investigation as well as many many news outlets in search of supporting evidence and none was ever found.

That’s not to say it didn’t happen, but it hasn’t been proven by any means.

Re: The un-celebrity president: Jimmy Carter shuns riches, lives modestly

#33

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

smileysteve wrote: post #22
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But history has judged him as one of the worst presidents. I wonder if that is a fair judgement or whether he was just the victim of the economic cycle and external forces.

In many ways, "history" has changed with revelations from the CIAs actions in Iran, Reagans actions in Iran (before and after), and more, especially to those of us reading instead of basing it on partisan hackery. Perhaps one of the better statements we can most accurately make is that his administration was pretty poor at covering things up, spinning - perhaps to the extent of lacking the confidence Americans requir…

> especially to those of us reading instead of basing it on partisan hackery

And make no mistake: the partisan hackery is strong in criticism (more commonly, vacuous dismissal) of Carter. I know a Republican who calls him "that man", a la FDR's detractors.

Re: The un-celebrity president: Jimmy Carter shuns riches, lives modestly

#34

Post by rectang »

pulisse wrote: post #31
rectang wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get you, but rhetorical power is just another form of power. Carter maximizes the power of his truths by eschewing wealth and direct organizational power.

It's true (pretty much by definition) that rhetorical power is a form of power. But it's a further, cynical step to conclude that if someone acts in a way that confers rhetorical authority, they must be doing so just for the sake of that authority. You're assuming away the possibility that someone might be genuinely acting, at least in part, from principle.

I disagree that it's cynical. I think maximizing the power of your ideas and principles is laudable, and can have great returns. Tying ethics to tangible reality increases the value and urgency of ethical behavior.

Re: The un-celebrity president: Jimmy Carter shuns riches, lives modestly

#35

Post by johnchristopher »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #28
humanrebar wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's a bit opinionated to be considered "ex-presidential". He was pretty sour grapes with the Reagan administration and generally had plenty of opinions about each of the subsequent ones.

Having opinions about things doesn't mean one isn't "ex-presidential". Of course he has opinions about things, and has decided to voice them. What makes someone "presidential" (or ex-"presidential") is the way one conducts themselves and voices their opinions. Not the lack of opinions nor the lack of voicing them.

I don't know. Now that I am old enough to see how people praise Bush or Chirac even though `they are the worst presidents ever` I can't help but wonder what it was really like under Carter.

Re: The un-celebrity president: Jimmy Carter shuns riches, lives modestly

#36

Post by rectang »

siberianbear wrote: post #2

I decided to submit this because I have always been fascinated with Jimmy Carter. What a genuine, decent person. But history has judged him as one of the worst presidents. I was in third grade when Carter was running for re-election against Ronald Reagan. Our teacher gave us an assignment to create a campaign poster for your favorite candidate. I chose Jimmy Carter, and added the campaign slogan, "I will gladly trade…

> But history has judged him as one of the worst presidents.

As polarization has increased, views of former presidents have become more partisan and whether you hold this view now more closely tracks political affiliation.

Re: The un-celebrity president: Jimmy Carter shuns riches, lives modestly

#37

Post by nabla9 »

claydavisss wrote: post #26
nabla9 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carter succeeded in freeing the Hostages. Carter's negotiations lead to the release of the hostages on the day Reagan was inaugurated. Iranians were deliberatively delaying the release because Carter was literally the the face of great Satan for them.

The Iranians were likely eager to have the crisis end as well...they gained nothing while becoming a global pariah. They probably also understood that if they were to end the crisis by killing the hostages, Reagan would have authorized the use of nuclear weapons on Tehran.

> Reagan would have authorized the use of nuclear weapons on Tehran.

Before you say things like this maybe you should ask yourself something like "Is this my personal opinion I invented on the spot without any evidence."

Re: The un-celebrity president: Jimmy Carter shuns riches, lives modestly

#38

Post by [deleted] »

claydavisss wrote: post #26
nabla9 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carter succeeded in freeing the Hostages. Carter's negotiations lead to the release of the hostages on the day Reagan was inaugurated. Iranians were deliberatively delaying the release because Carter was literally the the face of great Satan for them.

The Iranians were likely eager to have the crisis end as well...they gained nothing while becoming a global pariah. They probably also understood that if they were to end the crisis by killing the hostages, Reagan would have authorized the use of nuclear weapons on Tehran.

[deleted]

Re: The un-celebrity president: Jimmy Carter shuns riches, lives modestly

#39

Post by dominotw »

m_alexgr wrote: post #21

Jimmy has his priorities straight. A humble man who tells the truth. And knows what is most important in this life. Hint: it's neither wealth nor power.

He is already a wealthy man though. Being wealthy is not just about driving a flashy car, its about having the mental security that if shit hits the fan, you would be taken care of.

Re: The un-celebrity president: Jimmy Carter shuns riches, lives modestly

#40

Post by peatmoss »

mvkel wrote: post #8
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But history has judged him as one of the worst presidents. I wonder if that is a fair judgement or whether he was just the victim of the economic cycle and external forces.

Every president is the victim (or beneficiary) of the economic cycle and external forces. What makes a president memorable is what they do when they’re dealt a “bad hand.”

I marvel at what a terrible hand Obama was dealt when he entered office. I don’t support everything he did, but I’ve got to give the guy props for getting anything done. I miss “No Drama Obama.”

Obama may not be quite the boy scout that Carter has been, but my expectations are that he’ll become an elder statesmen of the republic that we’ll cherish similarly.

Post reply on HN