Live data from Hacker News

Statement on President Carter’s Health

cartercenter.org

61–70 of 190 posts

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#61
post #2

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…

> brilliant nuclear engineer

Was he though? He did a B.Sc. and then "nuclear power school, a six-month non-credit course" which he did not finish (through no fault of his own).

The course was started after the clean-up in Canada.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#62
post #2

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…

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,…

> 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.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Surely it depends very much on what job gets done?

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How much of that was the US's Cold War classic evaluation where Anti-Communist seems to vastly dominate any other consideration in the decision of who to back? Just look at the dictators and death squads we actively trained here in South and Central America.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#66
post #2

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…

* Initiated deregulation and an inflation-hawkish Fed.

* Very dubious energy policies - which were not dominated by environmentalism but by the search for alternate fossil fuel sources, all of them way more polluting than conventional fossil fuels.

* Mixed foreign policy record, failing badly in on Iran and Zimbabwe but helping with Egypt-Israel peace.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great person but he was unpopular as a president at the time because he failed to stop high inflation and to resolve the Iranian hostage crisis. The latter especially sunk his chances of re-election. So much of politics is about what happens when you’re in office, but also how you deal with what happens.

What I don’t understand about narrative that Carter failed on Iran is that Regan never got enough blame for blatantly violating U.S. laws and negotiated with Iran despite saying we don’t negotiate with hostage takers. Carter got far too much blame and Reagan far too little. https://www.vox.com/2016/1/25/10826056/reagan-iran-hostage-n...

Reagan played the political game far better than both Carter and Nixon (Watergate notwithstanding). He was a master at couching effective foreign policy tactics, which often relied on detente (eg negotiating with Iran), within the augur of American values and exceptionalism that spoke to the people of the time ("we don't negotiate with hostage takers").

The former was critical to actually get things done, but a president has to realise that the latter is just as critical because you need that public support to get the former through the door.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I hear this a lot but I think it’s kind of a cynical take. There are plenty of people who run for office because they genuinely care and genuinely believe they can make a difference.

Of course there are power hungry sociopaths who make it. But there are 535 members of Congress, 50 governors, thousands of mayors and city council members and state reps, etc. They can’t all be terrible, yet I feel like the popular refrain is still “no one actually good wants to be in charge.”

I don’t know. Just feels very self fulfilling and defeatist.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Surely it depends very much on what job gets done?

I feel like that sort of reinforces his point tbh. But both of y’all are right on some level.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#70
President Carter comes off as a nice enough person, but the historical reality is that much of the current neoliberal economic era really got started under his tenure. I suppose it was also a response to the oil price shock of the early 1970s and the institution of petrodollar recycling in the mid-1970s, itself something of a consequence of Nixon leaving the gold standard.

For the birth of the neoliberal economic movement, aka 'globalization':

> "Countries, like the United States and Germany, better equipped to face worldwide competition and in favour of policies that strengthened it, saw trade liberalization as the right path.... Eventually, under US President Jimmy Carter's leadership and with the key support of Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, the results of the Round reflected a vote in favour of liberalizing international trade. Thus, the Round was shaped by the globalizing economy but, at the same time, its results gave further impetus to the globalization wave that would reach full swing in the 1980s–1990s. The GATT talks took place in the shadow of globalization: while attempting to govern the process, also built it up."

That really marked the beginning of the end of the political influence of manufacturing-sector unions in the United States as well, and it's curious that a Democratic administration kicked that off, I think.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07075332.2017.1...

Also, Carter and Brzezinski played a central role in the destabilization of Afghanistan, done in the name of opposing the Soviet Union, by approving the initial covert action program in 1979. Of course it got much larger under Reagan. The Soviets were hardly blameless, they wanted control of Afghanistan to facilitate a direct route to move their oil to the Indian Ocean, a theme interestingly revived in the Bush/Obama era (Clinton's New Silk Road, another failure). Now it's what, China's Belt and Road? Sort of bypasses Afghanistan though.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/coldwar/interviews/episode-17/brz...

It's rather curious how public perceptions of public figures have been managed over time, but the reality is that every president since WWII has been engaged in empire-building of some sort or other, often in opposition to the Soviet Union, certainly, which was doing the same kind of thing.

A world without empires and superpowers would be a much more peaceful world, I'm pretty sure.

Post reply on HN