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

Statement on President Carter’s Health

cartercenter.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 190 posts

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#71

Post by starkd »

wkat4242 wrote: 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…

He was a very young president, and since he had an engineering background, he tended to get stuck in the weeds. There are stories of him micro-managing affairs, involving himself in affairs that should have been left to low-level staff. And he had a terrible speaking ability. It was not uncommon to walk away from his comments not knowing just what he had said.

As with many, he has mellowed with age. His humanitarian efforts post-administration are probably the best summation of the man. While his policies were deeply unpopular, it is notable he is one of the last presidents not to sell out the white house after he left office. He still lives in a relatively modest home.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#72

Post by bsenftner »

wefarrell wrote: post #18

I’m a huge fan of the man despite the fact that I wasn’t alive when he was president. He strikes me as possibly the kindest, humblest and most compassionate man who has possibly ever occupied the Oval Office. The complaints about him that I’ve heard from the older generation of my family is that he was too nice and naive to run a superpower like the US.

I consider him one of the greatest human in recent history. It is a damn shame the current climate is so politically difficult; he is not going to get the recognition he deserves for quite a while. Yes, there will be recognition, but the magnitude of what he took on, gripe-less all the while, is yet to be realized.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#73

Post by WJW »

version_five wrote: post #57
Waterluvian wrote: post #33

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

The "politician by random lottery" model has always seemed like it would get completely owned by those that don't get changed around every few years, like the civil service and the lobbyists. Even more than is already the case, since at least now you can have career politicians who can be trained by their parties in things like "dealing with lobbyists". Seriously, I love my mother but if she were the deliberate target of a months long lobbying campaign with billions of budget I fear for the actions she might take.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#74

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

Miraste wrote: post #13
wkat4242 wrote: 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…

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…

Glad you highlighted the luck part. The hostage crisis really did him in, despite the fact that, in the end, he actually negotiated to get all the hostages back safely, with the Algiers Accords being signed minutes after Reagan was inaugurated.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#75

Post by michaelscott »

voz_ wrote: post #17
wkat4242 wrote: 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…

> I know he wasn't popular in the US which I don't really understand. Note, these are not my opinions, but I am going to seek to answer this based on the things I have read on him. In short, the general opinion is that he was a weak, pitiful, activist president. His overtures toward peace, anti-imperialism, humanitarian causes were laden with activism rhetoric that one would normally use if they were outside the stru…

I think this a great summary. Carter is someone who, when looking back, seems very ahead of his time in his views. It's just that presidents are not assessed in a vacuum, and unfortunately he was not perceived as the president America needed at that point in its history.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#76

Post by Waterluvian »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #68
version_five wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 refra…

I’ve seen the “voluntold into politics” at lower levels: like in schools and community organizations and such. The president of my province’s dental association is someone new every year.

It seems to work, particularly at lower levels. At high levels, perhaps not so much.

I agree that there’s people who sign up out of civic duty. I think the sexiness of politics attracts the wrong people. I think this is particularly an American phenomenon, but not unheard of elsewhere. We have a handful of cult personalities in politics but 99% of the politicians you can’t even name. They’re not getting huge kickbacks or a big salary. It’s just a job.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#77

Post by boomboomsubban »

digianarchist wrote: post #29
wkat4242 wrote: 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…

The Carter administration was certainly better than others when it came to foreign-policy but he still authorized and funded Operation Cyclone [0]. To say that he was interested in world peace is pure revisionism. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

While he definitely deserves blame for the project starting under his watch, he still did far less with it than Reagan.

>Funding officially began with $695,000 in mid-1979,[3] was increased dramatically to $20–$30 million per year in 1980, and rose to $630 million per year in 1987

His total funding of it was around 5% of what the Reagan administration spent in one of it's eleven years funding it.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#78

Post by elbigbad »

sfgoodforonce wrote: post #49
HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a heads up — you live in an echo chamber

[flagged]

I am not the person to whom you’re responding, but I feel compelled to say that I would very much recommend you broaden whatever literature or media you consume. Your statements are really at odds with a more nuanced reality. I don’t think having a second opinion will help much, but I don’t think it could hurt necessarily.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#79

Post by bsenftner »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #64
jasonhansel wrote: post #42

Over time, I think it's increasingly clear that our country made a horrible mistake in the 1980 election. Whatever happens, Carter's legacy will only continue to improve.

I naively don't know why you say that.

Ronald Reagan and the start of corporate puppet US Presidencies. The fools had an Official White House Astrologist setting the presidential schedule. The Reagan White House was as dismaying stupid as it was dangerous, yet quite effective for the GOP. They still praise him like he was Jesus.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#80

Post by starkd »

incanus77 wrote: post #30
Miraste wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

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.
Post reply on HN