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,…
Personally I don’t think the US should ever be expected to handle any foreign revolutions.
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.
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…
I’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.
Good 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.
I have a lot of respect for Carter. Not only did he really seem interested in world peace instead of the warmongering from the MIC, he also remained active for all these years furthering humanitarian causes. And he was a brilliant nuclear engineer who cleaned up a nuclear accident with this team in Canada. I know he wasn't popular in the US which I don't really understand. It sounds to me like he fought the vested bi…
He funded and armed the Mujahideen in Operation Cyclone though - which has literally caused endless trouble with the rise of radical Islam. So it wasn't all "world peace".
True, but this is something that could have gone both ways. It could easily have led to an enlightened movement as well. At he time the Mudjahedeen were very much in the "good guys" book.
I have a lot of respect for Carter. Not only did he really seem interested in world peace instead of the warmongering from the MIC, he also remained active for all these years furthering humanitarian causes. And he was a brilliant nuclear engineer who cleaned up a nuclear accident with this team in Canada. I know he wasn't popular in the US which I don't really understand. It sounds to me like he fought the vested bi…
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…
President 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.
I have a lot of respect for Carter. Not only did he really seem interested in world peace instead of the warmongering from the MIC, he also remained active for all these years furthering humanitarian causes. And he was a brilliant nuclear engineer who cleaned up a nuclear accident with this team in Canada. I know he wasn't popular in the US which I don't really understand. It sounds to me like he fought the vested bi…
> really seem interested in world peace Definitely. He returned the Panama Canal to Panama because it's the right thing to do despite perhaps not being in the US' best interest. He advocated Palestine's rights despite all the resistance from the pro-Israel community.
Apparently my grandfather had a bumper sticker, “Keep the canal, give ‘em Carter.”
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…
A 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 can…
Related 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
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,…
Personally I don’t think the US should ever be expected to handle any foreign revolutions.
That's a tricky position to hold, because they keep doin' them.
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…
President 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 tha…
Pretty 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.
A 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 can…
Related 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
“Mother #*^%er.”
“What’s wrong?”
“Sigh. Just got this in the mail. It says I have to be president this year.”