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

81–90 of 108 posts

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

#81

Post by MrLeap »

johnchristopher wrote: post #35
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Man you're speaking directly to me right now. Reading people on reddit drone on about "TRUMP REALLY MAKES YOU WISH FOR BUSH JR. AMIRITE?" makes me think I'm taking crazy pills.

Nothing I've seen Trump do so far is even in the same bad/wrong hemisphere as the patriot act. I eagerly await his attempt, it should be a doozy.

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

#82

Post by tedunangst »

pmiller2 wrote: post #79
danso wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what does that point have to do with this article, which details how differently Carter lives compared to other former presidents? I think it’s self-evident that Carter, being one of the fewer than 50 men in the history of the U.S. to be elected president, has an existence generally unimaginable the the vast majority of Americans.

That’s precisely what’s wrong. How can people who have “unimaginable existences” represent me?

And what does that have to do with the article?

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

#83

Post by icebraining »

humanrebar wrote: post #16
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.

No, he's a nice man but a poor leader. He had lots of really nice things to say about Chavez and Castro when they died, for instance. Even if you're left wing, you need to acknowledge they did some pretty awful things to their people as leaders.

He had lots of really nice things to say about Chavez and Castro when they died, for instance.

Lots of really nice things? What he said about Castro: "We remember fondly our visits with him in Cuba and his love of his country."

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

#84

Post by [deleted] »

DennisP wrote: post #46
dominotw wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's pretty much anyone with a pension, decent insurance, and friends. I guess everything's relative and you can define "wealthy" at whatever level you want, but Carter could be living in a mansion and flying private jets, and chose not to.

[deleted]

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

#85

Post by pmiller2 »

tedunangst wrote: post #82
pmiller2 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s precisely what’s wrong. How can people who have “unimaginable existences” represent me?

And what does that have to do with the article?

It’s merely the example in front of me right now. Donald Trump or any of the people listed here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_t...) would do just as well.

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

#86

Post by yborg »

pmiller2 wrote: post #79
danso wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what does that point have to do with this article, which details how differently Carter lives compared to other former presidents? I think it’s self-evident that Carter, being one of the fewer than 50 men in the history of the U.S. to be elected president, has an existence generally unimaginable the the vast majority of Americans.

That’s precisely what’s wrong. How can people who have “unimaginable existences” represent me?

I get that you have an axe to grind here, and are going to have at it with a will, but let's not be intentionally obtuse. The act of being the President itself is an existence most people can't really experience. It is inherent in the office. It would be absurd to suggest he immediately resign from the office of representing the people because he instantly is no longer one of the people. It's an inherent issue with representative democracy.

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

#87

Post by mattkrause »

pmiller2 wrote: post #77
mattkrause wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not really sure where you’re going with this. The point of the article, it seems to me, is that he has consciously chosen a modest, communitarian life, even though he could certainly arrange for more lavish surroundings. Is your argument that he’s paid too much? If so, what do you think is reasonable compensation for one of the most stressful jobs on earth?

My point is that we have a system of government that is for and by the rich, where billionaires tell the millionaires in government what they want, and then they get it. Your opinion does not matter to them [0]. Someone receiving a $206K/year pension, according to the 4% safe withdrawal method, is the equivalent of having $5.1M in a retirement account, except this is better, because it doesn’t run out. Most people wo…

Sure, he has access to money—-no argument there—-and his life will always be comfortable.

On the other hand, how can you say that he’s not shunning riches, or at least their trappings? They live in Plains, Georgia. Their big Sunday dinner is casserole and one Solo cup of “bargain Chardonnay” with the neighbors. They turned down living quarters in favor of a pull-out couch in their office. It’s not at all the stereotypical lifestyle of someone with millions in the bank. Hell, parts of it make my lifestyle (academic scientist) seem opulent—-we at least have IKEA wineglasses!

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

#88

Post by gumby »

madengr wrote: post #49
gumby wrote: post #43

Like Cincinnatus, returning home after the war and taking up his plow. Two things have always struck me about Jimmy Carter: 1 - He was willing to nominate Volker to Fed chair even though he knew Volker's plan of raising interest rates massively would cost him (Carter) re-election. I believe he would have survived even the Iran crisis but for that, but it was the right thing to do. Reagan got all the credit for it sin…

The Iranian hostages were released the day of Reagan’s inauguration. Reagan would have bombed Iran. Carter’s diplomacy were just about effective as Obama’s lines in the sand. Sometimes diplomacy through a gun barrel is needed.

Actually internal Iranian records from that period show that the occupation was actually a pain in the neck to maintain on operational and diplomatic grounds, though it was worth waiting until Carter left as a great fuck you to him in response to him having (unsuccessfully) sent in a special forces team.

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

#89

Post by gumby »

wdr1 wrote: post #74
gumby wrote: post #43

Like Cincinnatus, returning home after the war and taking up his plow. Two things have always struck me about Jimmy Carter: 1 - He was willing to nominate Volker to Fed chair even though he knew Volker's plan of raising interest rates massively would cost him (Carter) re-election. I believe he would have survived even the Iran crisis but for that, but it was the right thing to do. Reagan got all the credit for it sin…

> Volker's plan of raising interest rates massively would cost him (Carter) re-election. I believe he would have survived even the Iran crisis but for that, but it was the right thing to do. Reagan got all the credit for it since it started under Carter's watch and finished under Reagan's. It's hard to take this as anything but partisan spin. These issues are never black & white and there is hardly consensus on what…

I don't see how that can be partisan, and I'm not even sure in which direction you might mean.

But my comment was about Carter: he took an unpopular decision because he thought it was in the best interest of the nation, whatever the personal cost. And indeed, as I said, Reagan got the credit. Even if you think Volcker was wrong, or even made things worse, my comment still stands.

That National Interest link you sent is about the "Volcker rule", a 21st-century position decades after he was Fed chairman and having nothing at all to do with the topic (and the article from The Week mentions that people these days think of Volcker more for that).

The article from The Week supports the point as well (that says that Volker's action put an end to the stagflation that resulted from years of not doing anything about the problem), and says Reagan did precisely the wrong thing.

The Economist article does tepidly raise the idea that Volcker may not deserve the level of credit he gets ("Would those [non-Volcker] factors have been sufficient to take the air out of growing inflationary pressures? Perhaps not."). The consensus is of course that it worked; I do think that topic deserves more analysis.

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

#90

Post by pdfernhout »

gumby wrote: post #43

Like Cincinnatus, returning home after the war and taking up his plow. Two things have always struck me about Jimmy Carter: 1 - He was willing to nominate Volker to Fed chair even though he knew Volker's plan of raising interest rates massively would cost him (Carter) re-election. I believe he would have survived even the Iran crisis but for that, but it was the right thing to do. Reagan got all the credit for it sin…

Carter's speech in 1979 was prescient: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jimmycartercrisisof... "We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I’ve warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure. All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path -- the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to true freedom for our nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem."

Too bad we (US Americans) collectively picked the wrong path...

But thankfully some of us did go down the right path individually and in small groups. And so, for example, forty years later, solar power is now cheaper than coal, and electric cars are increasingly cost effective, and we know how to build super-insulated passive-solar homes in cold climates that do not require a furnace, and so on. We could have had that all decades earlier with a lot less suffering and pollution and other expenses from externalities -- and maybe had fusion power and thorium power too by now. But at least we made progress because of individuals with the same spirit of grace-full humanity, community-mindedness, persistence, and cooperation that Jimmy Carter demonstrates.

Post reply on HN